THE 

H-CHURCHMAN DISARMED 



A DEFENSE OF 



OUR METHODIST FATHERS. 



BY W. P. HARRISON, D.D. 



MAY 22 1886 

£f washing^ 



NASHVILLE, TENN. : 
SOUTHERN METHODIST PUBLISHING HOUSE. 
1886. 




Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year ,886, 

the Book Agents of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Soz< 

in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington ' 



TO THE ILLUSTRIOUS MEN 

WHO MADE THE HISTORY OF 

THE FIRST HUNDRED YEARS OF AMERICAN METHODISM, 

Part of Whom Have Crossed the Flood, and Have Left Their 
Precepts and Examples as Guides to Their Successors; 

TO THE VENERABLE MEN 

WHO HELPED TO SHAPE 

The Constitution of a Church whose Object it is "to Spread 
Scriptural Holiness Oyer These Lands;" 

TO THE FAITHFUL MEN 
*£Z\n ^ t i 11 Linger! nn tfje Stories oil Mime, 

Having "Borne the Burden and Heat of the Day" and are Waiting 
for the Command to "Come up Higher," 

THESE mm ME RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED 

BY 

THE AUTHOR. 

(3) 



PAGE 

Introduction , 5 

Chapter 1 25 

Chapter II 34 

Chapter III 45 

Chapter IV <;2 

Chapter V. 75 

Chapter VI 90 

Chapter VII 1 [7 

Chapter VIII 137 

Chapter IX ' 159 

Chapter X _ . l$i 

Chapter XI 211 

Chapter XII 226 

Chapter XIII 247 

Chapter XIV 205 

Chapter XV 283 

Chapter XVI 301 

Chapter XVII 324 

Chapter XVIII 351 

Chapter XIX 377 

Chapter XX 392 

Chapter XXI 4] 7 

Chapter XXII 437 

Chapter XXIII 401 

Chapter XXIV 484 

Appendix « 503 

List of Authorities 505 

m 



Introduction. 



THE High-church party in the Church of England 
is represented by a quarterly periodical which 
bears the exclusive title of The Church Review. In the 
number for January, 1885, there is an article review- 
ing a recent publication — " The Life of Bishop Sea- 
bury," by Rev. E. Edwards Beardsley, D.D., LL.D., 
of New Haven, United States of America. The year 
1884 was the centennial anniversary of Bishop Sea- 
bury' s ordination by the Scotch Non-jurors, and the 
occasion was opportune for the appearance of the book 
in London. 

In the course of his article the reviewer, having 
reached the period of suspense which ended in Dr. 
Seabury's abandonment of hope from the English 
bishops, and his application to the Non-jurors of Scot- 
land, says: 

"At this crisis the all-sufficient J ohn Wesley inter- 
vened as a cleus ex machitid to settle the question in the 
plenitude of his self-created apostolate. Nothing 
daunted by his own notorious failure in America, he 
took upon himself, in his bed-chamber at Bristol, on 
September 2, 1784, to consecrate one Thomas Coke to 
the office of 'superintendent,' which in America was 
promptly translated into bishop. Coke having per- 
formed the same ceremony upon Aston, the ' Method- 
ist Episcopal Church' was added to the other sects 
bubbling in the colonial caldron, and in spite of 



6 



Introduction, 



Charles Wesley's epigram, it quickly lost sight of its 
origin: 

'How easily are bishops made 
By man or woman's whim; 
Wesley his hands on Coke hath laid, 
But who laid hands on him?' 

" The shaft penetrated. Dr. Beardsley tells us that 
after Wesley's death, in 1791, Coke, who was a gradu- 
ate of Oxford, applied to Bishops Seabury and White 
to impart the apostolical succession to himself and 
Aston; and not obtaining his request, returned to En- 
gland and publicly recanted his schism." (Pp. 310, 311.) 

The reader will perceive that there are several grave 
charges against Dr. Coke in the above extract. He is 
accused of duplicity and hypocrisy. Doubting the 
validity of his ordination by Mr. Wesley, he applies 
to Bishops White and Seabury for the "apostolical 
succession." Failing to obtain his request, he returns 
to England and openly recants " his schism," and pub- 
lishes his recantation as widely as possible, but con- 
tinues, nevertheless, to act as a bishop in the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church in America for many years. 

Having read these misrepresentations of Dr. Coke 
in the Review, I sent to London for a copy of Dr. 
Beardsley 's book, in order that I might see whether 
the statements of The Church Review were authorized 
by Dr. Beardsley's work. On receipt of the volume 
it was apparent that the English writer had only ech- 
oed the accusations of the American biographer. De- 
siring to act with kindness and with prudence at the 
same time, I copied the offensive paragraph in the 
"Life of Seabury," inclosed it in a letter to Dr. 
Beardsley, and requested him to furnish me with the 
authority upon which his statements were founded. 



7 



I was aware that Dr. Coke's letter to Dr. White had 
furnished an occasion for the charge that Dr. Coke 
was at one period of his career in a state of disquie- 
tude and doubt concerning the validity of his ordina- 
tion by Mr. Wesley. The circumstances connected 
with the first publication of that famous letter were 
familiar enough, but it would seem to be a sufficient 
settlement of that question, when Dr. Coke in 1503 
solemnly affirmed that he had never for a moment en- 
tertained a doubt about the validity of his ordination. 
The language used in the letter to Dr. White was con- 
sistent with Dr. Coke's denial of the construction 
placed upon it. and ordinary courtesy requires that 
the veracity of a man shall not be called in question 
on the basis of equivocal or ambiguous terms of speech. 

But never before, to my knowledge, has the charge 
of palpable duplicity been brought against Dr. Coke. 
He might have entertained doubts of his episcopal or- 
dination—such doubts as Dr. Ives. Bishop of the Prot- 
estant Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina, confesses 
that he entertained for years whilst he exercised the 
episcopal office in his Church: but these doubts in the 
case of Dr. Coke, we are informed by Dr. Beardsley, 
led to the recantation of his work in America, and this 
recantation was made immediately after his return to 
Europe in 1791. and yet we find Dr. Coke exercising 
the office of a bishop in America in 1792! He presid- 
ed in the American Conferences as often as opportu- 
nity served, and continued so to do until at the request 
of the British Conference he was permitted by the 
General Conference of 1S0S to reside in Europe. That 
this conduct was inconsistent with common honesty is 
a very plain proposition. 



8 



Introduction. 



In reply to the question as to his authority for mak- 
ing this statement, Dr. Beardsley referred me, in his 
courteous reply, to Dr. Coke's letter to Dr. Seabury, 
written in 1791. That letter I had never seen in print, 
but I was informed that it was contained in a volume 
entitled "Fac-similes of Church Documents." This 
volume had been issued only for private circulation, 
and it was several weeks before I succeeded in ob- 
taining a copy of it. The letter of Dr. Coke to Dr. 
Seabury now appears in print for the first time. I 
submit the question to the reader whether the charges 
made by the author of the "Life of Seabury," and 
echoed by The Church Review, are sustained by the au- 
thority cited. 

The reputation of Dr. Coke is the common proper- 
ty of all the branches of Methodism. His errors we 
do not seek to extenuate, but we cannot suffer a blot to 
be placed upon his name. His career was an illustri- 
ous one; his hand turned the key in the lock of the 
treasure-house of the gospel, and through the newly 
opened door the missionaries of the cross have entered, 
bearing the riches of divine truth to the neglected Af- 
ricans of the West and the dusky heathens of the East 
Indies. He became the key-stone in the arch of Amer- 
ican Methodism, whose beauty and strength have ex- 
torted admiration from the lips of its foes. 

The author must be permitted to say that whatever 
of censure or severity these pages may contain must 
be understood as applying solely to the spirit of re- 
ligious bigotry. To be a true Methodist one cannot 
fail to recognize the image of the Lord Jesus in every 
pious heart of every name and order. " If thy heart 
be as my heart, give me thy hand." Party names can- 



Introduction. 



9 



not divide the people of the Lord; and the venerable 
founder of Methodism has left upon the record this 
watch-word for his followers. The liberty we claim, 
wa allow to others. No exclusive test of doctrine or 
discipline has marred the symmetry of the Christian 
charity that forms the only bond of union in the mili- 
tant Church. 

That the spirit of intolerance has lost its influence 
in the multiplied sects of Christendom we are inclined 
to believe, and that it will soon disappear to return no 
more is the happy prophecy of the world's redemption 
from sin and sorrow; but the charity we entertain for 
others must coexist with the determination to vindi- 
cate ourselves whenever the occasion arises, and the 
assailant proves to be " a foeman worthy of our steel." 
Aggression must be met by manly defense, for craven 
submission to wrong is a betrayal of the truth. In 
the communion of that people whose cause is injured 
by the prelatical assumptions of a few, there are mul- 
titudes of men and women who are " the salt of the 
earth." For them there are no words of censure or 
criticism in these pages. 

The language of an eloquent historian of Virginia — 
John Esten Cooke — will present the contrast which the 
reader will find in this volume. " What the Church 
had lost was the impure blood," says Mr. Cooke, 
speaking of the Episcopal Church in Virginia, "and 
it rose purified and invigorated. The great and good 
man who had cried to it, 'Awake, thou that sleepest, 
and arise from the dead ! ' gave his own impress to it 
from that time forward. It had once been intolerant, 
and many of its ministers had not been exemplary 
people; in the future it was to be the most tolerant of 



10 



Introduction. 



all communions, and its clergy were to be models of 
piety and self-sacrifice. This is the character of the 
Church to-day. It is so liberal in spirit that in cer- 
tain other dioceses it is scarcely recognized as an 
* Episcopal Church' at all. No criticism could be 
more welcome. It is to say that the Episcopal Church 
of Virginia is not cursed with a spirit of narrow sec- 
tarianism, is evangelical."* 

In this we rejoice, and its prosperity and progress 
will cheer the hearts of all true Christians of every 
name. On the other hand, from the pages of the same 
number of The Church Review that contains the charg- 
es against Dr. Thomas Coke, it affords me pleasure to 
extract the following noble tribute: 

"In the history of religious movements there is 
nothing more remarkable than the rise and progress 
of Methodism. One hundred and fifty years ago John 
Wesley had not begun his great work of evangeliza- 
tion in this country; yet to-day there is not a single 
quarter of the globe where, in some form or other, the 
influence of that work is not manifestly felt. 

"At the time of Wesley's death, in 1791, Method- 
ism could reckon three hundred and twelve preachers 
and seventy-nine thousand members. This in itself 
was no insignificant result of the work of one man — 
for the work of one man it was. Ear beyond Charles 
Wesley or George Whitefield, John Wesley had been 
the leader and inspirer of the eighteenth century re- 
vival. He was perhaps the greatest religious organ- 
izer that ever lived. With a firm and intelligent grasp 
of practical principles he united a perfect knowledge 
and mastery of details. Every thing went through 
* History of the People of Virginia, p. 396. 



Introduction. 



11 



his own hands. The supreme power he reserved to 
himself throughout. By his marvelous genius, his 
commanding personal character, his far-sighted judg- 
ment, and his prompt decisiveness, he brought all his 
fellow- workers into complete subordination to himself, 
and kept them, for the most part, obedient to his will. 
Hence, his death was like the removal of the ' driving- 
wheel ' from the machinery. The controlling and in- 
spiring human power was gone. 

" It was confidently predicted by the observers of 
the time that with the removal of this 'calmly fervent 
spirit,' the very heart and head of the new movement, 
the gradual decline of ' the societies ' would set in ; but 
the prophet did not prove to be amongst * the men who 
know.' The spread of Methodism since Wesley's 
death has been greater and more astonishing than its 
growth during his life-time. At first the Conference 
was evidently ill prepared and little fitted to use the 
great power which had been bequeathed to it. Those 
who intimately know Methodist history during the 
first ten years after Wesley's death — especially as it 
is preserved in pamphlets and letters — can only mar- 
vel that, amid the personal ambitions and petty jeal- 
ousies of some of its principal men, it did not go to 
pieces. But the perilous trials of that period, as of 
some more recent years, were safely passed through. 
From town to town in our own land, from one people 
to another in Asia, Africa, and America, the teaching 
of Wesley has been carried, until the 'General Statis- 
tics of Methodism' now report over thirty-one thou- 
sand ministers, more than four million and a half of 
members, and altogether nearly twenty millions of 
people who are in some way or other under the direct 



12 



Introduction. 



influence of Methodist teaching. A community so 
numerous, so rapidly developed, so thoroughly organ- 
ized, and extending its influence into all quarters of 
the globe, is a potent factor in the modern religious 
life of the world." 

These words might have formed an appropriate 
rear-guard in my army of defense; bat as I am not in 
retreat, I have chosen to place them in the front of 
the battle. The Author. 

Nashville, Tenn., January, 1883. 



The HigMurctaaii Disarmed. 

(13) 



G^apfeep I. 



The Statue of Gold — Friends and Foes of Religious Liberty— Owen, 
Roger Williams — Queen Elizabeth in favor of Coercion — Leonard 
Busher — John Calvin— William the Silent— John Goodwin — Ed- 
wards's Gangrena — Prynne — Simpson — John Milton — James Ar- 
minius. 

r I 'O the Christian moralist there is no reflection 



JL more humiliating than that which is suggested 
by the question of the liberty of conscience. That 
any man, or set of men, could deliberately justify the 
taking of human life as a penalty for difference of 
opinion upon religious subjects, would appear to us 
incredible, if it were not demonstrated in the bloody 
history of fifteen centuries. Persecution is not the 
weapon of a sect or a party, but of all sects and par- 
ties in powder up to a late period in modern history. 

Precisely when and where and why the intolerance 
of bigotry has given way to mildness and charity is an 
inquiry that has been variously answered. Individu- 
als of all sects have been advocates of toleration in 
matters of opinion, but they have usually been those 
who had no power to persecute, or those who were dis- 
qualified for acts of cruelty by natural temperament. 

It has been said that the pioneer in the direction of 
complete toleration, or of perfect liberty of conscience 
in religion, deserves to have in every thoroughfare in 
Christendom a statue of gold erected to his memory. 
To whom would the statue belong? To what man 
among rulers, to what princely spirit among religious 
teachers ? 




(15) 



16 



" To the Browuists are to be ascribed the first cor- 
rect views of religious liberty; and from them and the 
Baptist and Pedobaptist Independents who sprung 
from them, every thing that appeared on this topic for 
many years came."- 

This is the language of Mr. Orme, who does not hes- 
itate to claim for his hero undoubted preeminence on 
the one hand, and precedency in the order of time on 
the other. Fortunately the records are abundant, and 
we shall have no difficulty in making comparisons of 
dates, and principles as well. The same author who 
attributes to Dr. Owen, the Independent, the leader- 
ship among Christian teachers, makes the following 
statement concerning Soger "Williams, of Rhode Isl- 
and: "This gentleman obtained the first charter for 
the State of New Providence, of which he was consti- 
tuted Governor; and to his honor it deserves to be re- 
corded that he was the first Governor who ever plead- 
ed that liberty of conscience was the birthright of 
man, and granted it to those who differed from him- 
self, when he had the power of withholding it." f 

Savage, in his edition of Winthrop's Works, calls 
Koger Williams the "earliest assertor of religious 
freedom." % The character of this singular man re- 
quires patient study and a competent knowledge of 
the times in which he lived, if we propose to justify 
the lofty praises which have been bestowed upon him. 
That he displayed a spirit of 'intolerance while lie re- 
mained in the colonies of Plymouth and Massachu- 
setts Bay is beyond question. That he permitted in- 
dividuals of dl_creeds and professions to settle in the 
*Orme's Life of Dr. John Owen, p. 99. f Il.id p 100 ~+ Me" 
moir of Koger Williams, hy J. D. Knowles, p. x.. note. 



.4 Defense of Our Methodist Fathers, 



IT 



" Plantation ; ' of New Providence is equally true. But 
his forbearance and patience must be read through 
the lights of the age in which he lived, No man in 
the nineteenth century, following in the footsteps of 
Roger Williams, would be called a believer in the sov- 
ereignty of the religious conscience. Without enter- 
ing upon a discussion at this point, it will be seen 
presently that a greater man than the founder of 
Ehode Island had proclaimed and practiced perfect 
toleration of religious opinions twenty years before 
Pioger Williams was born. 

The enemies of religious liberty form a strange 
medley. 

" To allow Churches with contrary rites and cere- 
monies,'" said Queen Elizabeth, "were nothing else 
but to sow religion out of religion, to distract good 
men's minds, to cherish factious men's humors, to dis- 
turb religion and commonwealth, and mingle divine 
and human things, which were a tiling indeed evil, in 
example worst of all; to our own subjects hurtful, and 
to themselves to whom it is granted, neither greatly 
commodious nor yet at all safe," * 

The student of that period's history will be slow to 
condemn the Queen in this judgment. If ever there 
existed a necessity for some protecting hand to guide 
the Church through the elements of doctrinal chaos, 
it was needed at the close of the sixteenth and the be- 
ginning of the seventeenth century. Never was such 
diversity of opinion in matters of religion, for there 
was never before in the history of the Church, such a 
wonderful disposition to search the Scriptures and to 
expound the word of life. Within a period of sixty 
* Motley's Unite 1 ^Netherlands, Vol. I p. 26, 



The Hi</h-chirrchman Disarmed: 



years, embracing the last clays of Elizabeth and the 
close of the Commonwealth, there were published 
mora than seven thousand distinct works expository 
of the Holy Scriptures. The catalogue of these 
books, prepared at the end of 1665, shows a mass of 
matter exceeding twenty thousand volumes, all of 
which comprised the nature of commentaries upon the 
Bible. Every man who could read Greek made a 
translation of the New Testament. Many thousands 
wrote in sublime ignorance of the original tongues, 
but with more or less acuteness and intelligence. One 
of these works devotes four volumes 8vo to a single 
verse of the New Testament! 

We can readily see that the public taste which per- 
mitted to prince and peasant alike the privilege of 
standing as an expounder of the truth of God must 
call forth the worst, as well as the best, passions of 
the human heart. Limited knowledge promotes big- 
otry. Facility for the propagation of strange, uncouth, 
and surprising opinions must tend to increase the 
number of such books, and to confirm the discords of 
authorship, as well as the jarring ambitions of aspir- 
ing men of high and low degree. But was perse- 
cution—the jibbet, the stake, and the dungeon, no 
less than civil disabilities, and deprivation of proper- 
ty and personal liberty— was the hard hand of repres- 
sion essential to the prevalence of truth? We say 
now, it can never be; but who can satisfy himself that 
he would not have applauded the sentiments of Queen 
Elizabeth if he had been one of her subjects three 
hundred years ago? 

But whatever may be said as to the principle of tol- 
eration, it is certain that no nation in the world was 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 19 



prepared to practice this doctrine in the sixteenth 
century. No man possessed a more tender, charitable 
spirit than Thomas Cranmer, but he gave his consent 
to consign the bodies of his fellow -creatures to the 
flames because they held opinions at war with his views 
of the gospel. John Calvin, of all men in that age, 
ought to have shown, in his commonwealth of Geneva, 
an example of liberality and generosity; but he not 
only consented to the persecution of Servetus, but was 
the chief instrument in the capture, conviction, and 
execution of the unfortunate Socinian.* Melanchthon 
justified the act of Calvin; and while the Pope of 
Rome was jubilant over the murder of fifty thousand 
Protestants on St. Bartholomew's day, the godly men 
of the Church of England had no words of reproof 
for the man who had helped to murder a poor heretic 
in Switzerland. Alas! the truth bears a sad face, and 
we turn away in disgust. 

But I have promised to show that a greater man 
than Boger Williams preceded him in advocating re- 
ligious liberty. That stalwart figure in European his- 
tory — the man whose greatness grows as the years re- 
cede from the period which he honored as no man of 
any age has honored his time and country — the majes- 
tic form of William the Silent, Prince of Orange, rises 
before us as the ruler whose claims to immortality of 
praise no just man can withhold. 

"He resolutely stood out against all meddling with 
men's consciences or inquiring into their thoughts. 
While smiting the Spanish Inquisition into the dust, 
he wo aid have no Calvinist Inquisition set up in its 
stead. Earnestly a convert to the reformed religion, 
* Life of Servetus, p. 122. 



20 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



but hating and denouncing only what was corrupt in 
the ancient Church, he would not force men with fire 
and sword to travel to heaven upon his own road. 
Thought should be toll-free. Neither monk nor min- 
ister should burn, drown, or hang his fellow-creatures 
when argument or expostulation failed to redeem them 
from error." * 

In a social state whose perils were as great as those 
that threatened civilization in England, and at the 
same point of time, the Prince of Orange granted lib- 
erty to his deadly foes, and while he stood forth an 
advocate of religious freedom, the dagger of a Roman- 
ist bigot ended his career! He refused to oppress his 
fellow-men for conscience' sake, and the conscience of 
a fanatic exacted his life as a penalty for this charita- 
ble indulgence! Thus the pages of history reveal to 
us the roll of honor, on whose list appears the name 
of William, Prince of Orange, the first and greatest of 
rulers who have avowed and practiced the doctrine of 
soul-liberty. Roger Williams was born in 1599, Will- 
iam the Silent was murdered in 1583. Roger Will- 
iams declared for liberty of conscience in 1636; the 
Prince of Orange more than fifty years before. Rog- 
er Williams had one hundred and five men in his col- 
ony capable of bearing arms; the Prince of Orange 
had one city that sent to the battle-field eighty thou- 
sand men. Can we hesitate as to the priority or grade 
of merit presented in these cases? 

Justice to all parties requires an examination of the 
dates which record the various publications advocat- 
ing religious toleration. In 1614 Leonard Busher, an 
Independent, published a tract entitled "A Plea for 



-Motley's Rise of the Dutch Republic, Vol. III., p. 62. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 21 



Liberty of Conscience."* This is the first publica- 
tion whose date is clearly defined. Antecedent to this 
work of Busher, there is nothing claimed in behalf of 
the British Independents. Their record at the begin- 
ning of the century is altogether the other way. As 
the conduct of King Charles gradually revealed his 
utter incompetency for the high position which he 
held, the Episcopalians decreased in Parliament, and 
the Presbyterian and Independent parties became for- 
midable. By their union they overthrew Episcopacy 
without establishing either of the opposing forms of 
Church government. 

The Presbyterians were clamorous for compulsory 
conformity to the worship of the Church of England, 
as it had been changed by the Westminster Assembly. 
Cromwell saw his opportunity, in balancing the rival 
sects against each other without giving a positive de- 
cision in favor of either. Presbyterians were dissat- 
isfied, and Independents as greatly displeased. Xo 
test had been made to determine the strength of the 
contending parties, and thus the disorders of the 
Church kept pace with the anomalous condition of the 
State. During this period some of those who had suf- 
fered most by the hand of persecution were desirous 
of payment in kind, exacting in turn civil and person- 
al penalties from those who had robbed, imprisoned, 
and maimed the now triumphant sectaries. Prynne, 
a lawyer who had lost both of his ears by the execu- 
tioner, and had suffered the most degrading and hu- 
miliating punishments under the tyranny of Laud and 
his party, was now a blatant advocate for persecution 
by the Presbyterian authorities. f His book was en- 
*Life of Owen, p. 09= t. Jackson's Life of Goodwin, p. 110. 



22 



titled, "The Sword of Christian Magistracy Support- 
ed; or A Full Vindication of Christian Kings' and 
Magistrates' Authority under the Gospel to punish 
Idolatry, Apostasy, Heresy, Blasphemy, and obstinate 
Schism, with Corporeal, and in Some Cases, with Cap- 
ital Punishment. 1647." Surely this man ought to 
have known the horrible consequences of persecution 
for opinion's sake. But he did not see that the same 
arguments which justified him in branding the cheeks 
of a heretic Justified Archbishop Laud in cropping 
the ears of a troublesome and heretical lawyer! Laud's 
"truth" was as dear to him as a Church of England 
bishop, as Prynne's "truth" was to him as a Presby- 
terian layman. The "conscience" of neither has 
vantage-ground against the other, and thus both were 
right or both were wrong. Which of these proposi- 
tions formulates the truth, modern civilization declares 
with no uncertain voice. 

The Rev. David Simpson, in his "Plea for Relig- 
ion," * declares that Dr. Owen was the first writer who 
wrote in favor of toleration, and he gives the date of 
1643. "'Milton followed him about the year 1658, in 
his 'Treatise of the Civil Power in Ecclesiastical Caus- 
es.' And the immortal Locke followed them both 
with his golden 'Treatise on Toleration,' in 1689." 
The acquaintance of Mr. Simpson with the literature 
of that period does not appear to be extensive or ex- 
act. It is capable of proof that John Goodwin, as 
early as 1644, in the second edition of his reply to Dr. 
Adam Stewart, declared openly for liberty of con- 
science.- The times required, as perhaps all times 
will require, tnafe religioiis ^lerati^ should be de- 
* Simpson's Plea, p. 202. f Jackson's Life of Goodwin, p.. 322. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



23 



fined. If a Mormon resolves to make polygamy a 
part of his religion, we are not required to tolerate 
his conscience at the expense of public morality. If 
a heresiarch like Joe Smith should attempt to make 
thieving a principle of his religion, we are not required 
to defend him in his defiance of common honesty. It 
may be difficult to define the exact limits of religious 
principles, and to draw the line which separates liber- 
ty from licentiousness. The peace of the communi- 
ty, obedience to civil law, and the supreme welfare of 
the State, will seldom be enveloped in doubts which 
the intelligence of the age cannot remove. Thus, Mr. 
Goodwin's proviso to unlimited toleration required 
that the protected parties should be " peaceable in the 
State, and every way subject to the laws and lawful 
power of the magistrate." 

In 1646 an ordinance was proposed in Parliament 
for the "Punishing of Heresies and Blasphemies." 
Mr. Goodwin immediately published "Some Modest 
and Humble Queries concerning a late Printed Pa- 
per," etc. In this tract the author propounded a 
number of questions, which contain the soul and es- 
sence of religious toleration. The publication of this 
small work was the occasion of the most remarkable 
production which religious controversy has ever known. 
One Edwards, a Presbyterian fanatic, published a 
work entitled " Gangrena," in reply to Goodwin. In 
this work Edwards calls the tract of his opponent " a 
desperate, ungodly, atheistical piece." " I have had oc- 
casion to read many discourses and tractates," he says, 
"'that have been writ within the last hundred years; 
and have seen much wickedness in them, both in those 
of other countries and our own ; especially those written 



24 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



and newly printed within five years last past; but *n 
none of them do I find such a spirit of libertinism, athe- 
ism, prof aneness, and laying waste of all religion, breath- 
ing as in those Queries. " He declares John Goodwin to 
be the prince of heretics, worse than Socinus himself 
and declares: "I do not think it lawful for Christians 
to receive such a one into their house, or to bid him 
Godspeed; but rather, if they come where he is to fiy 
from him." The name of Goodwin he proposes to 
make "an abhorring to future generations." 

That we may see of what materials an argument 
against charity, meekness, temperance, and brotherly 
love can be framed, this paragraph is instructive: 

"A toleration is the grand design of the devil— his 
master-piece, and chief engine he works by at this 
time to uphold his tottering kingdom. ... As origi- 
nal sin is the most fundamental sin, having the seed 
and spawn of all sin in it; so a toleration hath all errors 
in it and all evils. It is against the whole stream and 
current of Scripture, both in the Old and New Testa- 
ment; both in matters of faith and manners; both gen- 
eral and particular commands. It overthrows all re- 
lations—political, ecclesiastical, and economical; and 
whereas other evils, whether of judgment or practice, 
be but against some one or two places of Scripture or 
relation, this is against all — this is the Abaddon, 
Apollyon, the destroyer of all religion, the abomina- 
tion of desolation and astonishment, the liberty of 
perdition, and therefore the devil follows it night and 
day, working mightily in many by writing books for 
it, and other ways; all the devils in hell, and their in- 
stalments, being at wo rk. to promote a toleration."* 

* Edwards's Gangrena, in Life of Owen, p. 43. 



A Defense of Our Method id Fathers. 25 



When liberty of conscience is branded as the off- 
spring of Satan, we cannot wonder at the savage epi- 
thets applied to John Goodwin by this madman. As 
Presbyterianism declined in power, Edwards, fearing 
the exercise of his own doctrine in the hands of those 
whom he had injured, fled to Holland and died there. 
It is not a little singular, however, that Mr. Orme, the 
biographer of Owen, whilst he notices the venomous 
character of the book of Edwards, gives no hint that 
the " Gangrena " was written in reply to John Good- 
win's treatise in favor of toleration. The dates will 
show that Goodwin preceded Owen in advocating tol- 
eration; that Goodwin was in favor of full, complete 
liberty of conscience, while Owen's approach to that 
doctrine was through slow and toilsome years of prog- 
ress; and finally, that Goodwin began where Owen 
ended. The reason of Mr. Orme's partiality is re- 
vealed in a few words: John Goodwin was an Armin- 
ian, and John Owen was a Calvinist! 

The caustic sonnet of Milton was written about this 
time, and made no little stir. The great poet had not 
then lost his eyesight,'- and he who had ventured all 
things in opposition to the tyranny of a king was not 
disposed to acquiesce in the despotism of a party: 

"Men whose life, learning, faith, and pure intent 
Would have been held in high esteem with Paul, 
Must now be named and printed Heretics 

By shallow Edwards and Scotch what d'ye call; 
But we do hope to find out all your tricks, 
Your plots and packing worse than those of Trent, 

That so the Parliament 
May with their wholesome and preventive shears 
Clip your phylacteries, though bauk your ears, 
And succor our just fears, 

Todd's Life of Milton, p. 84. 



26 



The High-church man Disarmed: 



When they shall read this clearly in your charge, 
New Presbyter is but Old Priest writ large." * 

■Whether Milton in these lines referred to the clip- 
ping of Prynne's ears does not appear; but it is prob- 
able, as that enthusiast was not the least among the 
advocates of persecution. But men who could remain 
oblivious to the plainest dictates of reason could meet 
the shafts of a poet's keenest wit. As Prynne had no 
ears, it was not expected that he should hear; but the 
men of Parliament had not been deprived of hearing, 
but of sense. They prohibited the use of the Book of 
Common Prayer, not in public only, but in family 
worship; the penalty being five pounds for the first 
offense, ten for the second, and for the third a years 
imprisonment, without bail or main-prize.T Absurd- 
ities like these vain efforts to regulate by Act of Par- 
liament the communion of the human soul with its 
Bather in heaven invariably strengthen the cause 
they are intended to destroy. 

We have traced the earliest declaration in behalf of 
toleration to Leonard Busher, in the year 1614 There 
remains the inquiry whether the champions of Prot- 
estantism can produce no earlier advocacy of a prin- 
ciple which appears to us to be fundamental in the 
system of Christianity. If this advocate can be found, 
It will be among the brave defenders of civil liberty 
whose long struggle for the rights of man furnishes 
one of the brightest chapters in human history. We 
turn our eyes instinctively to Holland, and the first 
suggested name is that of James Arminius. 

On the 8th of February, 1606, James Arminius re- 
signed the office of Rector of the University of Ley- 

*>Tew Forcers of Conscience, f Life of Goodwin, n. 110. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



■11 



den. This step was, upon his part, a peace measure. 
He had withdrawn his pupils from the useless study 
of scholastic disputations, and had directed their at- 
tention to the sacred Scriptures as the source and fount- 
ain of all religious truth; but his views concerning 
the predestination of the human soul were not palata- 
ble to some of those who were in places of distinc- 
tion, and especially to one of the professors. Armin- 
ius was not a promoter of strife and contention. Pa- 
tient inquiry into the truth as it is given to men in the 
Bible had caused him to forsake the doctrine of the 
Calvinists. He could not dissemble, and he must de- 
clare his opinions or resign his post. He preferred to 
do the latter; and upon his retirement he delivered an 
oration "on reconciling religious dissensions among 
Christians." This address, was prompted by a loving, 
brotherly spirit, and it was delivered with the purpose, 
but scarcely with the hope, of softening the disposi- 
tions of his opponents, and moderating the heats of 
controversy. This admirable address has shared the 
fate of many other writings of its author. Arminius 
was anxious to bring his fellow-men into accord and 
harmony, persuading them to agree upon mutual tol- 
eration of errors where actual agreement of opinions 
was impossible. Because he desired this he has been 
represented as foolishly striving to bring all men un- 
der one profession of faith into one Church. Perse- 
cutors in every age have professed to enterprise this 
very thing, and yet they have held up to ridicule the 
name of Arminius for attempting it. Unless it is a 
desire for bloody exhibitions to gratify a native cru- 
elty, for ^vhat purpose are compulsory laws for " con- 
formity " enacted ? To make all men see " eye to eye," 



28 



The HigK^hitrchinan Disarmed: 



and take their places side by side in the militant 
Chnrch of Christ! Therefore to do this, to promote 
union, those who refuse to think and believe accord- 
ing to Act of Parliament must be fined, imprisoned, 
or burned at the stake, for the love of God and the 
good of the souls of men! 

In reading this address of Arminius, the greatness 
of his intellect appears in rivalry with the goodness 
of his heart. He probes the question to the bottom, 
and leaves no essential feature unexamined. He be- 
gins with the blessing of Divine Providence which has 
given to his hearers the blessed light of the gospel. 
Cntrammeled, unhindered, every man may see the 
truth and walk in the way of life. On the other hand, 
as blessings and evils attend each other, human igno- 
rance has obscured the light of the holy word of God. 
Errors dark and deadly arise, and fill the path to 
heaven with dangerous snares and pitfalls. Advocacy 
of men's opinions creates enthusiasm for what is be- 
lieved to be true, and soon dissensions, strifes, divis- 
ions appear, and the hearts of men receive the poison 
of prejudice, malice, and evil works without number. 
The Church of the reformed becomes thus the assem- 
bly of the re formed— the jest, the taunt, the witticism 
of foes among the adherents of Piome, and the sport 
of those who have no creed and desire none. "I can- 
not dissemble the intense grief which I feel at my 
heart."' he exclaims, "on account of that religious 
discord which has been festering like a gangrene, and 
pervading the whole of Christianity!" 

Union is a great good. It is made more manifest 
by contrast with the evils of discord and disunion that 
surround us. The capacity for religion distinguishes 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 29 



man from the brutes; and it is marvelous that the sys- 
tem which ought to unite all souls to each other, and 
to God the Father of all, should become the occasion 
of placing men in hostility to each other, and by this 
means alienating all from the love and communion of 
the God of peace and concord. The tendency of this 
state of things does not exhaust itself with the diffu- 
sion of discord and bitterness among the parties to 
the strife; beyond the limits of the struggling con- 
testants there are spectators who are tempted to reject 
all doctrines and to despise all professions, and thus 
to repudiate the Christian religion as the product of 
evil, and not the offspring of a Being infinitely wise 
and good. Thus infidels are made by the bitterness 
and enmities of misguided men. 

For these evils, which are pictured at full length 
and in formidable proportions, the orator has a rem- 
edy. It would lead the mind to despair, if no remedy 
were within sight. He proposes a council of the 
Churches. To this body the wisest, the best of rep- 
resentatives should be appointed, at the call of the 
recognized authorities of the State. Over this body, 
representing all shades of opinion, all degrees of faith 
and unfaith as these may be accepted or rejected by 
different classes of men, he proposes a president, ap- 
pointed by the highest civil officer, or elected by the 
body itself. 

In this august assembly every party, every grade of 
opinion must receive exact justice. Over the door of 
this council-hall he w r ould engrave these words : " Let no 
one that is not desirous of promoting the interests of 
truth and peace enter this hallowed dome ! " In the spir- 
it of prayer and supplication to the Great Head of the 



30 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



Church these Christians in council are to seek a com- 
mon ground of faith and practice. Having agreed 
upon the symbols which they are prepared to accept 
and defend, it will follow that the conclusion has 
failed of unanimity. What then ? Shall the hand of 
power compel the profession of unanimity when reason 
and argument have failed to produce agreement in 
opinion? The tendencies which in the nature of the 
case lead to such a result Arminius sets forth in forc- 
ible terms: 

"All these enmities, schisms, persecutions, and wars 
are commenced, carried on, and conducted with the 
greater animosity on account of every one considering 
his adversary as the most infectious and pestilential 
fellow in the whole Christian world; a public incendi- 
ary, a murderer of souls, an enemy of God, and a serv- 
ant of the devil; as a person who deserves to be sud- 
denly smitten and consumed by fire descending from 
heaven; and as one whom it is not only lawful to hate 
to curse, and to murder, without incurring any guilt, 
but whom it is also highly proper to treat in that man- 
ner, and to be entitled to no slight commendation for 
such a service, because no other work appears in his 
eyes to be more acceptable to God, of greater utility 
in the salvation of man, more odious to Satan, or more 
pernicious to his kingdom. Such a sanguinary zealot 
professes to be invited, instigated, and constrained to 
deeds like these by a zeal for the house of God, for 
the salvation of men, and for the divine glory. This 
conduct of violent partisans is what was predicted by 
the Judge and the Master of our religion: 'When 
they shall persecute you, and kill you for my sake, 
they will think that they do God service.' (John xvi 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 31 



2.) When the very conscience, therefore, arouses, as- 
sists, and defends the affections, no obstacle can offer 
a successful resistance to their impetuosity. Thus we 
see that religion itself, through the vicious corruption 
of men, has been made a cause of dissension, and has 
become the field in which they may perpetually exer- 
cise themselves in cruel and bloody contests."* 

But the soul of the humane professor revolts at the 
spectacle of Christians destroying each other for the 
sake of Christianity. He exhorts his hearers to a 
higher and nobler method of triumphing over error 
of every grade and species. He has prepared the 
way for a solution of the problem, if any solution can 
be obtained. If not, to God and the future all issues 
and all results must be piously committed. But no 
synopsis will supply the place of one of the conclud- 
ing paragraphs of this remarkable address: 

" But the Synod will not assume to itself the au- 
thority of obtruding upon others by force those reso- 
lutions which have been passed by unanimous consent. 
For this reflection should always suggest itself: 
' Though this Synod appears to have done all things 
conscientiously, it is possible that after all it has com- 
mitted an error in judgment.' Such a diffidence and 
moderation of mind will possess greater power, and 
will have more influence, than any immoderate or ex- 
cessive rigor can have, on the consciences both of the 
contumacious dissidents and of the whole body of the 
faithful ; because, according to Lactantius, ' to recom- 
mend faith to others, we must make it the subject of 
persuasion and not of compulsion.' Tertullian also 
says, ' Nothing is less a religious business than to em- 
* Works of Arminiusj Vol. I., p. 160. 



02 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



ploy coercion about religion.' For these disturbers 
will either then ( 1) desist from creating further trouble 
to the Church by the frequent, unreasonable, and out- 
rageous inculcation of their opinions, which with all 
their powers of persuasion they were not able to pre- 
vail with such a numerous assembly of impartial and 
moderate men to adopt. Or, (2) being exposed to the 
just indignation of all these individuals, they will 
scarcely find a person willing to lend an ear to teach- 
ers of such a refractory and obstinate disposition. If 
this should not prove to be the result, then it must be 
concluded that there are no remedies calculated to re- 
move all evils; but those must be employed which 
have in them the least peril. The mild and affection- 
ate expostulation of Christ our Saviour must also live 
in our recollections. He addressed his disciples and 
said, 'Will ye also go away?' (John vi. 67.) We 
must use the same interrogation, and must rest at that 
2)oint, and cease from all ulterior measures:' * 

Thus we have an argument and a plea for toleration 
which cannot be paralleled except in the pages of the 
Holy Bible. The Spirit of Christianity, of Jesus, the 
divine Author of our religion, breathes in every sen- 
tence, in every line. He would bring all men to agree- 
ment if possible. Failing in this, he would treat the most 
troublesome sectaries, the most persistent disturbers of 
peace and harmony, with kindness; and failing to con- 
ciliate by kindness irreconcilable elements of antago- 
nism, he would repose the truth of God on the bosom, 
and in the words of Jesus the Lord, and then rest the 
case for time and eternity! 

Let us recall the dates. Leonard Bus her in 1614, 
* V, T orks of Arminius, Vol. I., pp. 189, 190. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 33 



James Arminius in 1606. The first a plea in feeble 
and ineffective terms from one under the ban of a civil 
and ecclesiastical government; the other the recog- 
nized superior of the society in which he moved, the 
friend and counselor of the highest civil officer in the 
State, and aware of the influence he possessed and 
the power which could be used to injure, if not to si- 
lence his enemies. Compare these environments, and 
with eight years priority of time, the eloquent exposi- 
tion and defense of liberty of conscience will dictate 
to the candid and impartial world the name to be in- 
scribed on the statue of gold: James Arminius. 
3 



Ghapfeep IT. 

Organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church— Beginning of 
Christianity in Earnest— Church of England without Discipline 
—English Dissent— Defects of the Colonial Churches— Clerical 
Prizes — Absolute Equality in America — Fatal Results— Degrada- 
tion of the Ministry— Methodism on Trial. 

HR HE organization of the Methodist Episcopal 
X Church in America forms an epoch in the his- 
tory of Christianity. The year 1784 is the starting- 
point of a religious revival whose influence has been 
felt in every part of the civilized world. 

Methodism, as an independent form of Church life, 
is coeval with the steam-engine. As a factor in the 
progress of the material forces of civilization the 
steam-engine has developed the latent powers of phys- 
ical nature, and brought into exercise the long-neg- 
lected gifts of Providence. Methodism, as a purely 
religious force, has entered the field of the world, 
armed with the authority of Scripture, and inspired 
by the Great Head of the Church. Her objective- 
point is the conversion of the world to Christ, the Re- 
deemer of men. To this end tribute is drawn from 
every class and condition of human society. For the 
man of learning there is a broad field of labor; for the 
illiterate man, who only knows the way to the cross, 
and the blessedness that is found in believing in Je- 
sus, there is a narrower, but not the less important, 
post of duty. 

Hemmed in by social restrictions, and trammeled 

(34) 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



bo 



by customs, habits, and prejudices that dwarfed and 
stunted the spiritual life of its converts, Methodism 
in Europe struggled into prominence and power, but 
could not develop into the fullness and strength of a 
thoroughly furnished Church of Christ during the 
life-time of its founder. Mr. Wesley was a man of 
great wisdom, but he was not infallible. He could 
not foresee that separation from the Church of En- 
gland was essential to the success of the gospel which 
he had taught to his followers. In vain did he strive 
to put the new wine of the kingdom of Christ into the 
old bottles of a Church that had served the Providen- 
tial purposes of its organization. As a State institu- 
tion the Church of England has been for two centu- 
ries the defender of the Protestant faith among the 
kingdoms of Europe. But this high and honorable 
office was not the reward of a victory won by her bish- 
ops and clergy. The strong dissenting element of the 
nation caused the revolution that gave to Parliament 
the final decision in the struggle for the throne. It 
was not the x4rchbishop of Canterbury and his episco- 
pal brethren who decreed that no Catholic prince 
should occupy the throne of Great Britain. It was the 
voice of the people, the voice of patriotic dissenters 
and of Churchmen antagonizing the sentiment of their 
clergy that forever banished the sectaries of Rome 
from the high places of power. 

The Church of England was placed in the van of 
Protestant establishments, and has been kept there 
by the pressure from beyond, and not by the forces 
within her borders. If for a generation this pressure 
should be relaxed, the theories and tendencies of Pu- 
seyism would retrace the progress of centuries, and 



30 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



bring the English people back to the faith and prac- 
tice of the Dark Ages. 

It is this conservative force of English dissent, 
united with the rival influences of English Method- 
ism, that has formed a distinctive religious character 
for the Church of England. What is an army without 
discipline ? If disobedience to orders incurs no penal- 
ty, what troop of soldiers would follow their officers 
into the "imminent deadly breach?" If the declared 
penalty of violated law is never enforced, how long 
would any species of law remain the rule of moral ac- 
tion ? But the Church of England has no system of 
discipline. Practically she has none for her minis- 
ters; confessedly there is none for her members. Ex- 
communication from the Church is such a heavy pun- 
ishment that it is never inflicted. A clergyman may 
commit any species of immorality short of a felony, 
without losing his clerical character. In extreme 
cases only is a delinquent deposed from the ministry. 
Private members have no standard of religious char- 
acter. No man feels the restraining influence of the 
Church as a force modeling his character or helping 
him to govern himself. Public opinion has its code 
of morals, binding on the man of honor, or the man 
of the world, but the member of the Church has no 
standard by which he can test his own actions, and 
determine questions of right and wrong in his own 
personal experience. 

This lack of discipline is not merely a serious de- 
fect, it is a fatal weakness. The absence of a script- 
ural standard of moral action subjects the Church- 
man to many evils which the advocates of dissent 
have escaped. As there is no standard of moral ac- 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 37 



tion, there is no moral sentiment that can be confi- 
dently proclaimed as the voice of the Church. The 
absence of penalties of any kind proves the absence 
of principles, and the religious character of Church- 
men becomes the product of public opinion outside of 
the Church itself, or it ceases to be a religious char- 
acter at all. 

It was precisely at this point that the work of Mr. 
Wesley began. He did not propose to reform the 
doctrines of the Church of England, for he believed 
himself to be in full accord with them. He did not 
propose to organize a new Church, for he saw nothing 
essentially defective in the outward order and organi- 
zation of the national Church. He proposed to give 
to the Church a system of religious discipline by 
which the life of religion would be preserved when it 
was obtained. Therefore his "societies" were under 
as thorough regimen as the soldiers of an army. He 
who would not obey must cease to hinder. He did 
not hesitate to exclude any one from fellowship for 
the mere omission of duty. He proposed to introduce 
this spirit of order and obedience into the body of the 
Church, until the public opinion of the ecclesiastical 
body would exact conformity to the Bible standard. 
It will be readily acknowledged that a reformation of 
this kind is not palatable to our corrupt human nat- 
ure. To introduce rigid rules of holy living, and to 
admit or exclude men from the kingdom of heaven 
according as they have kept or violated these rules, is 
a labor for which men will never thank their benefac- 
tors. A reformation based upon morals alone will 
arouse more formidable foes than those that confronted 
Luther and Calvin. Therefore, Mr. Wesley lived and 



38 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



died nobly battling in a hopeless cause; but not with- 
out his reward. The end is not yet. He lived not to 
see the Church of England reformed, but he gave to 
the Church, to his followers, and to the age, the leg- 
acy of a great moral and religious awakening that will 
never cease to grow and strengthen until the great day 
of final awards. 

In America Methodism had no narrow limits pro- 
posed for her aggressive movements. The various 
Episcopal bodies existing in the colonies had no or- 
ganic connection with each other. Certain ministers 
w T ho received their ministerial orders from the Church 
of England were recognized as pastors of the "estab- 
lishment" in Maryland and Virginia; but in neither 
of these colonies was there any thing resembling a 
convocation, a synod, or assembly of ministers. There 
was no form of union among them, and therefore 
there was no substance of Church unity. By a sort 
of tradition the Bishop of London was regarded as 
having ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the colonies; but 
there was no law for this government of the colonies 
by the Bishop of London or by any other bishop in 
England.* The whole question of religious life and 
manners in the colonies had been eliminated from the 
schedules of English statesmen, for obvious reasons. 
But in those colonies that tolerated something resem- 
bling the Church of England there was the same fa- 
tal weakness, the absence of Church discipline. 

In the Church of England there existed a moral 
sentiment which sustained the esprit da coips of the 
clerical body. This moral sentiment was not wholly 
distinct from the religious life of the clergy, but it 
* Maryland: History cf a Palatinate, by Wm, Hand Browne, p. 192. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



39 



had its root in a human, but laudable, ambition. It was 
obviously true that a bishop should not be a drunkard, 
or a gambler, or a libertine. The proprieties of life 
would be violated, the religious sensibilities shocked, 
by a brazen display of irreligion in the high places of 
the Church. The moral power that provided re- 
straints of this kind was based upon the fact that the 
political party in office could not afford to disgrace it- 
self by unworthy appointments to the episcopal bench. 
But it was nevertheless true that neither the YV hig nor 
the Tory party made these appointments without ref- 
erence to the partisan influence of the persons chosen. 
If there were exceptions, they were very few, Minis- 
ters did not become bishops because they had served 
the Church, but because they had served the party, 
faithfully. Men of distinction in the walks of litera- 
ture were often rewarded by lucrative places, but 
there were few instances of betterments bestowed up- 
on men who could claim nothing else besides a burn- 
ing zeal for the salvation of souls. 

There were places of preferment, however, and sta- 
tions of great honor, and offices whose salaries were 
objects of ambitious effort. This fact preserved the 
Church of England from intellectual decadence, and 
placed the profession of the ministry among the 
foremost pursuits of the middle classes in England 
The learned Dr. Bentley, as far back as 1713, called 
attention to this feature of the English Establishment. 
There were six thousand clergymen at that time, 
whose salaries averaged only fifty pounds per annum. 
He affirmed that the existence of a few "high prizes" 
in the Church— in the prebends, deaneries, and bish- 
oprics—kept the clergy from becoming as ignorant and 



40 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



worthless as the monks of the Dark Ages. "Do but 
once level all your preferments," says Bentley, "and 
you'll soon be as level in your learning."* The wis- 
dom couched in these few words is forcibly illustrated 
by the colonial churches. 

In America there was an absolute equality of cleric- 
al positions in the Church. There were no prebends, 
no deaneries, no bishoprics. By the laws of Virginia 
and Maryland, the salaries of the incumbents of par- 
ishes were fixed, and all placed upon a level. No tal- 
ents of the preacher, no faithfulness of the rector, no 
zeal upon the part of the minister, could augment, and 
no lack of these could diminish, the stipend allowed 
by law. The natural consequence followed this ar- 
rangement — ministers had no motive for self-cultiva- 
tion. There were no positions in society open to them, 
and none in the Church higher than those they occu- 
pied. Stagnation of the intellect was the result, and 
must ever be under similar circumstances. Ministers 
are human, and while the highest and purest motive 
of ministerial action must be the salvation of the souls 
committed to them, yet the very nature of man re- 
quires that the expenditure of labor and effort should 
be recompensed by some adequate reward. Thus it 
happened, as foretold by Bentley — the intellect of the 
colonial clergy was " all on a level." There were few 
men of genius, few men of more than average abili- 
ties, and not a few instances of men of superior nat- 
ural powers, who became inert and nerveless by reason 
of their surroundings. 

The absence of intellectual stimulus to the ministry 
affected the pastors of the churches, but the absence 

* Bentley: Remarks upon a Discourse of Free-thinking, p. 152. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 41 



of Church discipline concerned the whole body. By 
birth the Episcopalian was entitled to the initiatory rite 
of baptism, and by this rite he was made " a child of 
God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." 
No confirmation was possible in adult age, because 
there were no bishops to administer the rite. All at- 
tempts to awaken the conscience by appeals which 
brought the Scripture doctrine of heart-conversion to 
view were opposed as the teachings of enthusiasm; 
and the single title of the average Churchman consist- 
ed in the record of his baptism in infancy. Various 
and contradictory opinions prevailed upon the subject 
of the Lord's Supper. Some regarded it with a mys- 
terious awe little less superstitious than the Romanist 
entertains for the consecrated "host." Others did 
not scruple to partake of this solemn ordinance as a 
mere proof of loyalty to the reigning sovereign. Test 
acts had transformed a devout act of religion into the 
badge of a party and the qualification of an office- 
holder. 

Meantime there was no religious character existing, 
either in the minister or the layman, as such. Piety in 
the minister was not an essential quality for his sta- 
tion, and the profession of piety was a rare, unique 
thing in a layman. The ministry led the way in pop- 
ular amusements, and in the festivities of the wine- 
table, and the dissipations of the card-room. The 
prostitution of ministerial character was fearful. The 
testimony comes to us from too many sources to be 
denied, and there is scarcely room for the exercise of 
charitable doubts. 

The Established clergy in Virginia, Mr. Jefferson 
tells us, were chiefly engaged in cultivating their farms 



42 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



and teaching classical schools. Once a week a ser- 
mon was preached at the parish church, but other 
pastoral functions were little attended to.* Indiffer- 
ent to the zeal and industry of the preachers among 
the 4 'dissenters," because their own position was se- 
cured by law, they passed their days in heedless se- 
curity, and were not aroused to a sense of their dan- 
ger until they found two-thirds of the people in open 
revolt against the State Establishment^ For more 
than a century the Episcopalians had absolute and 
undisputed possession of the land, and under their 
religious dominion society was becoming worse. Not 
only did "the clergy" make no effort to elevate the 
moral and social standards of their people, but they 
opposed all those who labored for these ends. "In 
the progress of the several centuries which preceded 
this date," says one of the biographers of Thomas 
Jefferson, " the morals of the Established clergy had 
become a by-word and a disgrace to the Christian 
name. They were, in a majority of instances, drunken, 
idle, and debauched." % This censure may be too se- 
vere, but there are reasons to believe it altogether just. 

"There is little reason to doubt that serious irreg- 
ularities ' did exist in the lives of many ministers," 
says John Esten Cooke. "They played cards, and 
hunted the fox, and indulged in drink; and what was 
even worse, they had small love for their neighbors, the 
dissenters." § These are the words of one who had no 
motive to misrepresent the character of the Church with 
which his ancestors had been identified. If the state of 

* Correspondence and Miscellanies of Thomas Jefferson, vol. i., p. 
31. f Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, p. 308. % Schmucker: Life and 
Times of Thomas Jefferson, p, 84. \ History of Virginia, p. 332. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



43 



society was somewhat better in Maryland, it was clue to 
the fact that the Episcopalians were never in a popu- 
lar majority in that colony. It was a political and 
not a religious motive that procured the establishment 
of Episcopalianism in Maryland.* To prove that 
Catholics and dissenters could be loyal to the reigning 
house in England, the Church of the kingdom was 
complimented by placing Episcopalian ministers in 
charge of the religious interests of the colony This 
was an experiment; and while it accomplished some- 
thing as a measure of political sagacity, it was not at- 
tended by the moral declension that followed undis- 
puted sway in Virginia. 

The absence of a system of discipline in the Epis- 
copal churches of the colonies formed a sufficient rea- 
son for the existence of the Methodists as an independ- 
ent society. The administration of the ordinances 
of baptism and the Lord's Supper was the only point 
of union between the colonial Methodists and their 
Episcopal brethren. In matters of doctrine they were 
not agreed. The most vital of all scriptural truths— 
the instantaneous conversion of the soul from the 
kingdom of Satan to the light and liberty of the chil- 
dren of God — was either directly denied or gravely 
questioned by the great majority of the clergy. Con- 
scious pardon of sin, positive knowledge of the divine 
favor in a spiritual change of heart, was openly de- 
nied, and all profession of this experience was brand- 
ed with the fatal stigma of "enthusiasm." That a re- 
ligious association could long exist inside of a Church 
whose ministry was hostile to the vital principle of 
Methodism, was simply impossible. 

* Browne: History of Maryland, p. 189. 



4A 



The Higli-churelimcui Disarmed: 



When the Methodist Episcopal Church was organ- 
ized in 1784, the doctrines of Wesley had free course, 
and no jarring discords, no hindering forces, were to 
to be found within the borders of the independent 
Church. The test of time and Providence was now to 
be applied to the new denomination. If its religious 
experience was merely "wild-fire," it would soon burn 
itself out, and leave the lifeless ashes of a foolish en- 
thusiasm as a warning to others. If there was a true 
foundation for the plea of scriptural doctrines and 
real heart-experience, a free country, a free Church, 
a self-denying ministry, and a sincere flock of truth- 
seeking disciples would establish the fact in the sight 
of men and angels. 

The verdict of history appears in the four millions 
of members and the position of American Methodism 
at the beginning of the second century of its exist- 
ence. 



Ghaptep III. 

The Puritans of New England — Independents in Holland — A Sin- 
less State — High-church Persecution — The American Episcopate 
—The Whig Controversy— Dr. Chandler— Patrick Henry— Ex- 
travagant Estimates— Act of Toleration — Low State of Religion 
in Maryland and Virginia — Dr. Hawks — Small Salaries — Meth- 
odist Preachers— Itinerancy —The Tobacco Question — Alienation 
from the Church — Mercenary Pastors. 

"KTO reader of the early chronicles of New England 
J,\j can fail to see that the Pilgrims who landed on 
Plymouth Kock were sincere men who believed them- 
selvss persecuted for conscience' sake. In recent 
times the fact has been doubted; and like most issues 
in the history of man, two sides to the question exist, 
and there will be found not a few arguments to sus- 
tain the position that those men who came over in the 
££ May-flower ' ' had all reasonable liberty to worship God 
as they pleased. Certainly this was the case in Hol- 
land, from whence they came directly to the shores of 
America. But the flock of John Robinson were En- 
glishmen. Holland was to them a free country, be- 
cause they were in sympathy with the dominant party 
there; and if they could have entered into all the feel- 
ings, prejudices, and pursuits of the native population, 
they would have been swallowed up, and their history 
would have rilled a page, at most, in the annals of the 
Dutch Eepublic. But being Englishmen, the congre- 
gation of the Independent minister could not adapt 
themselves to the slow, cautious, and unenterprising 
Dutchmen. They saw nothing before them in Hol- 

(45) 



46 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



land but humiliating inferiority, and they dreamed of 
an empire as illustrious as that which resulted from 
the exodus from Egypt. The New World had no gov- 
ernment of any kind. There were no institutions, 
no castes in society, no prejudices to be broken down. 
As the virgin soil invited the labor of the husband- 
man, so the pregnant future offered to their enthusi- 
astic imagination a country in which the grand exper- 
iment of a holy nation could be tried. 

^ They drew the picture of a State, a people, without 
sin, without crime. Grace abounding was able to 
vouchsafe divine help, and the experience of persecut- 
ed Christian men presented the alternative. They 
had felt the heavy hand of the High-churchman, whose 
principles pledged him to persistent and relentless 
exertion after conformity. Honestly or otherwise, he 
must strive to bring all Englishmen into the fold of 
the Church; and keeping them there, they must hear 
the voice of centuries, and obey the teachings of the 
guardian of the souls of men. They must come into 
the Ark, the Church of God, or perish in the deluge 
of wrath which divine justice had always in store for 
the evil-doer. Scruples of conscience were matters of 
no moment. What difference did it make whether 
the eueharist was celebrated on a table or an altar? 
What harm was there in episcopal robes, in reading 
prayers, in worshiping God in the magnificent sen- 
tences of a glorious liturgy ? 

Thus the High-churchman, having no scruples of 
his own, could not allow for them in others. Arch- 
bishop Laud, after the New England plantation had 
grown into some measure of success, proposed to send 
out to the new country a supply of bishops, that the 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 47 



grace of God might have channels of distribution in 
the new country; but the Puritan powers in England 
had become too strong to allow their brethren across 
the ocean to be followed by the grasping hand of 
episcopal tyranny. A king who never knew the value 
of the truth and had no knowledge of kingly honor 
or integrity, and an archbishop who knew no maxims 
in politics or religion greater than abject obedience to 
the divine right of kings and bishops, brought the 
crown and the miter alike into the dust. The servant 
first, and then the master. Laud perished on the 
block, by the hands of men whom he had outraged 
and persecuted; and King Charles paid the penalty of 
unprincipled and persistent efforts to rob the people 
of their birthright of liberty. * 

" Our liberty to walk in the faith of the gospel with 
all good conscience, according to the order of the gos- 
pel," says John Norton, of Boston, to the restored 
monarch, Charles II., "was the cause of our trans- 
porting ourselves, with our wives, our little ones, and 
our substance, from that pleasant land over the At- 
lantic Ocean, into the vast wilderness. . . . We could 
not live without the public worship of God, nor be 
permitted the public worship without such a yoke of 
subscription and conformity as we could not consent un- 
to without sin. That we might therefore enjoy divine 
worship free from human mixtures, without offense to 
God, man, and our own consciences, we, with leave but 
not without tears, departed from our country, kindred, 
and fathers' houses, into this Patmos."* 

"Had the sees in England fourscore years ago," 
writes Increase Mather in 1695, " been filled with such 

* Cotton Mather's Magnalia Christi Americana, vol. i., p. 296. 



48 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



archbishops and bishops as those which King William 
(whom God grant long to live and to reign) has pre- 
ferred to episcopal dignity, there had never been a 
New England." * These testimonies of the day can- 
not be refuted. The Pilgrims were terribly in ear- 
nest, and they did not fly from imaginary terrors. 
Men were liable to the dungeon and the stake because 
they could not pray to the Almighty in the printed 
words of a book; and those hardy sons of adventure, 
seeking to escape from persecution, went out to face 
the Indians and the horrors of an inhospitable wilder- 
ness. 

Can we be surprised, then, that these New England 
men, whose fathers had fled from the hard hand of 
episcopal conformity, should be startled at the propo- 
sition to introduce into America the system of perse- 
cution which had driven the Puritans from England? 
The untimely fate of Laud had forestalled action in 
the reign of Charles I. The unexpected death of the 
Queen had caused a similar miscarriage in the time 
of Queen Anne. But now, under the auspicious reign 
of a native Briton, the third attempt was made to es- 
tablish an American episcopate. 

A dozen clergymen, nearly all of whom were mis- 
sionaries pensioned by the " Society for the Propaga- 
tion of the Gospel in Foreign Parts," assembled in a 
little village in New J ersey. They lamented the for- 
lorn condition of the episcopal cause in the colonies, 
and especially in New England. Every denomina- 
tion that aspired to be called a " Church " had all the 
machinery it required for order and discipline except 
the Episcopal. Nom inally attached to the See of Lon- 
* Mather's Magnalia, vol. i., p. 248. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 49 



don, it was a very slender tie that bound the Church- 
men of the colonies to the mother Church. Every 
man who desired ordination must cross the ocean, on 
whose turbulent waters not less than twenty per cent, 
of these candidates for the ministry suffered fatal 
shipwreck. As no bishop existed in America, and 
none but bishops had the power to administer the 
rite of confirmation, so there were no rightly admit- 
ted members of the Church entitled to receive the 
Lord's Supper. Ingrafted into Christ and into the 
Church by baptism, the neophyte remained forever 
denied access to the communion-table for the want of 
a few words pronounced by the lips of a prelate, and 
the mysterious gift which is conveyed to the kneeling 
subject by the episcopal hands. High-church theory 
declared, No bishop, no Church. Human ingenuity 
strove in vain to prove that the Church of England 
existed in America without a bishop. An end to this 
anomaly was sought, and the dozen clergymen in- 
structed one of their number to prepare an appeal to 
the ecclesiastical authorities of Great Britain. 

The narrowness of view so evidently constitutional 
in the advocates of High-church doctrines appears in 
Vhis "Appeal." Neglecting the advice of Archbishop 
Seeker, " to give no umbrage to the people of any de- 
nomination," * the writer— Dr. Chandler — sets forth in 
the most offensive manner possible, the pretensions of 
the Episcopal party to an absolute monopoly of the 
gospel of Christ. "Men may ridicule the notion 
of uninterrupted succession as they please," he ex- 
claims, "but if the succession be once broken, and 
the powers of ordination once lost, not all the men on 

* Letter to Rev. Richard Peters, in Fac-siiniles of Church Documents. 
4 



50 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



earth, not all the angels in heaven, without an imme- 
diate commission from Christ, can restore it! It is as 
great an absurdity for a man to preach without being 
properly sent, as it is to hear without a preacher, or 
to believe in him of whom they have never heard." * 

The arrogance of this language is only equaled by 
the weakness of the argument it is intended to convey. 
The " power of ordination " is likened to something 
that may be dropped like a ring or a coin into the 
depths of the sea, to be recovered no more. If this 
"power" be lost, it can only be recovered by an "im- 
mediate commission from Christ." The admission 
is made, then, that the writer has no "immediate 
commission from Christ!" A sad admission, truly, 
in the ears of men who believed Jesus Christ to. be 
the Head of the Church, and the sovereign author- 
ity that commissioned every messenger, whether apos- 
tle or deacon, that is sent into the vineyard of the 
Lord. But loose and absurd as the logic of this sen- 
tence is, it is a true reflex of the argument which 
prevails among High-churchmen everywhere. How 
should a man be "properly sent?" He should have 
the love of God in his own soul, and a desire to save 
the souls of his fellow-men. This the apostle Paul 
declares when he says that "whosoever shall call up- 
on the name of the Lord shall "be saved." How shall 
they call unless they have heard of the Saviour? and 
who can tell them of him except those who have been 
saved by him ? Ten thousand hands in consecrating 
forms may have been placed on a man's head, and it 

* American Whig: a collection of tracts from the late newspa- 
pers, containing a number of pieces on the subject of the residence 
of Protestant bishops in the American colonies, etc. New York : 1768. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



51 



will avail nothing if the power of the saying Christ 
does not show itself in the preacher's heart. But of 
this apostolic truth we hear nothing from Dr. Chand- 
ler. It is the "laying on of hands" that is impor- 
tant. Knowledge of things divine, of the power of 
Christ in transforming, renewing, sanctifying the 
human soul— these things are never brought to the 
front as a necessary part of the "apostolical succes- 
sion." 

The publication of this "Appeal" was the signal for 
a strife of tongues and pens that echoed from Massa- 
chusetts to Georgia. A writer in a New York paper, 
under the name of "American Whig," began a thor- 
ough, well-reasoned criticism of the published docu- 
ment and of the plan of the American episcopate. 
Notwithstanding the assertion that the advocates of 
the episcopate did not wish the English type of epis- 
copacy to be transferred to America, it was clearly 
shown by Lord Hale's testimony that a bishop was a 
civil officer in virtue of his appointment. "Every 
bishop, by his election and confirmation, even before 
consecration, has ecclesiastical jurisdiction annexed 
to his office as judex ordinarius within his diocese." * 
Whether they desired it or not, these bishops, from 
the moment of their appointment, became judges, 
having courts of jurisdiction over many of the dearest 
and most estimable rights of the citizen. 

The writer in New York was soon assisted by others 
in Philadelphia and Boston. The Pennsylvania jour- 
nal brought forward a disputant not inferior to the 
pioneer in the discussion. In dissecting the "Appeal " 
it was shown that the Presbyterian Church of Scot- 



* American Whig, p. 32. 



52 The High-churchman Disarmed: 

land was as much entitled to the name of "Estab- 
lished Church " as the Episcopal Church of England. 
Neither the one nor the other had any power or juris- 
diction outside of the limits in which it was the State 
Establishment. It was therefore as absurd to speak 
of "the Church of England in America" as it would 
be to talk of "the Church of Jerusalem in Borne," or 
"the Church of Corinth in Antioch." The names 
limited the jurisdiction as much as the municipalities 
of London, Edinburgh, or Dublin were limited by 
their respective titles. 

But the armor of the author of the "Appeal " was 
pierced in many sensitive spots. Dr. Chandler, and 
his brethren the missionaries, professed to desire bish- 
ops with jurisdiction over the clergy only, and with- 
out pomp or pride of state, giving themselves wholly 
to the Church, and supported solely by the voluntary 
contributions of the laity. Nevertheless, it was stated 
that a general tax for the support of the bishops 
would be no great hardship; and if any man refused 
to pay the tax, he would not deserve to be called a 
good subject, a loyal citizen. Thus the doctrine was 
avowed, almost in direct terms, that submission to the 
American episcopate was the test of loyalty to the 
King. 

In answer to the critics who were dealing severely 
with the logic of the "Appeal," Dr. Chandler, the au- 
thor, appeared, and Dr. Samuel Seabury, the secreta- 
ry of the convention, affirmed that the conduct of one 
of his opponents deserved worse treatment than "a 
regard to my own character would suffer me to give 
him." What treatment was meant may be readily in- 
ferred by those who are acquainted with the early his- 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



53 



tory of Episcopalianism in Virginia. In that colony 
the worship of the Church of England was estab- 
lished by law. At the time that Dr. Seabury was 
recording his impotent threat in New Jersey, John 
Waller, Lewis Craig, James Childs, and others, were 
lying in jail in Spottsylvania county, Virginia, impris- 
oned for the sole offense of preaching the gospel! 
The immortal Patrick Henry rode fifty miles to attend 
their trial; and after one of his impassioned flights of 
oratory, the presiding magistrate ordered the prison- 
ers released.* More than forty days had some of 
these men languished in prison, while the " clergy " 
were seeking from the mother country a new set of 
officers and a more thoroughly organized system for 
the enforcement of " conformity " in America. 

The most remarkable fact connected with this con- 
troversy is that the High-churchmen claimed that op- 
position to their wishes was "persecution" of the 
Church! Because they were not allowed to introduce 
an ecclesiastical system at war with the vital princi- 
ples of American society, the Puritans and Presbyte- 
rians were persecuting " the Church ! " Because they 
were not permitted to set up an Establishment that 
would soon rally to its support the whole power of 
the monarchy in the attempt to secure a compulsory 
conformity, they were denied their natural rights by 
the proscriptive voice of prejudice and passion! 

In order to magnify the importance of this demand 
for bishops in America, Dr. Chandler estimated the 
adherents of the Establishment at "nearly or quite 
one million of persons." This extravagant estimate 
was reduced to less than o ne-fourth the nu mber 

* Bennett's Memorials of Methodism in Virginia, p. 39. 



54 



claimed. The vague and indefinite qualifications of 
a " Churchman " caused many to be numbered among 
the adherents of episcopacy who were utterly indiffer- 
ent to all religious opinions. It would be difficult to 
define a " Churchman " when George Washington is 
so called, although he did not receive the Lord's Sup- 
per in his parish church;* and Patrick Henry was a 
vestryman, notwithstanding his withering denuncia- 
tion of the intolerance, avarice, and inhumanity of the 
" clergy 5 ' and " the Church. " But the broad and con- 
venient rule which reckons all persons on our side, 
unless they are active partisans of our opponents, 
brought a large number of persons into a nominal 
connection with episcopacy who really had no prefer- 
ence for that or any other system of Church govern- 
ment. 

But the most effective arguments on the side of 
the ^ advocates of liberty of conscience against the 
project of an intolerant episcopal hierarchy, were 
those addressed to the hardy sons of New England. 
"In vain did our ancestors leave their native land, and 
fly into the wilderness to avoid spiritual tyranny," 
said one of these descendants of the Puritans, "if 
those who established it in England can extend it to 
America, In short, if the Parliament is to interfere 
and regulate one part of our internal police, why not 
every part? If they among whom we have no repre- 
sentatives; who, from the distance between them and 
us, must be unacquainted with our condition, circum- 
stances, etc. ; they in whose election we have no choice, 
over whose conduct we have no check, as the laws 
they make for us will not affect them; if our superiors 
*Life of Bishop White,, p. 197. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



55 



in Britain can bind on us religious establishments, 
and rule us by laws made at the distance of three 
thousand miles, we may boast of our liberty as we 
please, but it is no more than 'the baseless fabric of 
a vision.' "* 

These were words of thrilling interest to the people 
who knew, from the vivid pictures drawn and exhib- 
ited to them in their childhood by fathers and moth- 
ers, that the iron heel of power would spare neither 
age nor sex when the interests of a proud hierarchy 
demanded the subjugation of 4 dissenters," It was 
one of Mr. Wesley's causes of gratitude to an enlight- 
ened monarchy that since the Act of Toleration, un- 
der William III., no man had suffered persecution in 
England by the State on account of his religion.f 
Technically "the State" did not send its magistrates 
to incite mobs and murderous factions against the 
early Methodists. " The State " did not cause the in- 
cumbents of Church livings to close the doors of the 
Lords house against Mr. Wesley himself. When in 
danger of personal violence, at the last moment the 
heavy machinery of "the State 3 ' was brought into 
requisition, and the preachers of a free gospel were 
turned loose to run the hazards of brutal treatment 
again. These things are true, and they are causes of 
thankfulness that matters were not worse, as they 
might have been. But the" suffering evangelists of 
Virginia did not find the prison-houses closed, nor the 
courts deaf to the appeals of inhumanity and preju- 
dice. It mattered not to them whether "the State" 
did it, or the magistrates of "the State," or the mob 
unchecked by the constituted auth orities; intolera nce 
* American Whig, p. 102. f Wesley's Works, vol. xi., p. 137. 



56 



The II igh-churchman Disarmed: 



did exist, and many persons suffered in England, as 
well as America, notwithstanding the humane spirit 
and purpose of the Act of Toleration. 

The failure of the scheme for an American episco- 
pate is so closely connected with the political events 
which resulted in the independence of the United 
States of America, that we cannot thoroughly under- 
stand the religious without some knowledge of the 
political question. 

The character of the clergymen of the Church es- 
tablishment in Virginia would have destroyed any de- 
nomination which subsisted upon the voluntary con- 
tributions of the people. Whatever the cause may 
have been, it is acknowledged by Episcopal writers 
that an earnest, pious, devoted minister of Christ was 
an exception to the rule in Virginia. Dr. Hawks, the 
historian of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Vir- 
ginia,* gives a variety of reasons for this state of 
things. He acknowledges that after one hundred and 
fifteen years of indorsement by the civil authorities, the 
state of religion was much lower in Virginia than in 
some of the other colonies. f Only here and there was 
then to be found, at wide intervals, a true minister of 
the gospel, worthy of his vocation. 

To account for this humiliating fact, the historian 
lays the blame partly on the colonial authorities and 
partly on the clergymen themselves. The colony was 
in bad repute abroad, and few competent persons in 
England wished to risk their fortunes in the wilds of 
America. The grace of God did not move them, and 
the love of Christ did not constrain them, to seek for 
the souls of either th e colonists or the heathen Incli- 
*Prot3stant Episcopal Church in Virginia, passim, f Ibid., p. 86. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



57 



ans. The result was that men of questionable char- 
acters in Great Britain came to the colony, and en- 
tered upon the sacred office, without any authority 
whatever. The Bishop of Derry, in Ireland, in 1740, 
refused to give certificates to three ministers discard- 
ed from his diocese, but they came to America and 
obtained good livings without difficulty* The cler- 
gy petitioned the Legislature in 1755, and in their 
petition they declare that many persons who are 
a disgrace to the ministry have obtained parishes, 
and dishonor the cause of religion by their con- 
duct, f 

Dr. Hawks thinks that the uncertain tenure by 
which the clergy held their parishes was one of the 
principal causes in producing this result. The argu- 
ment is fatally defective. If the ministers had been 
men of God, men who felt the worth of souls and 
cared for the salvation of the people, no uncertainty 
of tenure could have produced a weak, heartless, and 
ungodly ministry. The feeble plea that a faithful 
minister would have been discharged by his vestry, if 
he ventured to reprove the sins and vices of the peo- 
ple, has been urged in many places as an excuse for 
ministerial delinquency. It is doubtful if a half doz- 
en cases of this kind of persecution can be found on 
well-attested records. Bad as human nature is, there 
can be no question that a wicked man admires the 
faithful minister who denounces sin and wickedness 
in every form, provided the minister lives the gospel 
that he preaches. If a spirit of love and kindness 
tempers the reproofs of sin, there is no danger to him 



* Hawks: Protestant Episcopal Church in Virginia, p. 117. f lMd^ 
p. W. 



58 



The myh-chitrchman Disarmed: 



who utters them, even among the vile and unregener- 
ate sons of men. 

Another cause assigned for the existence of an un- 
godly ministry was the slender salary which was paid 
to the incumbent of a parish. In many places glebes 
of two hundred acres were attached, and to the use of 
house and land was added a salary of sixteen thousand 
pounds of tobacco, valued at twelve and a half shil- 
lings the hundred pounds. This was equivalent to 
nearly five hundred dollars of our currency, at a time 
in which that sum would have purchased much more 
than the same amount at this day. Those who ad- 
vance this argument as a reason for the scarcity of 
ministers of real piety exhibit a culpable ignorance 
of the spirit of Christianity. If this salary did not 
supply the wants of the clergyman, of what variety of 
flesh and blood was the Methodist preacher made who, 
more than fifty years after this period, was compelled 
to live upon an allowance of sixty-four dollars per an- 
num? If a clergyman with a home, could not exist 
piously and honestly upon five hundred dollars a year 
in 1776, how did Bishop Asbury exist, without house 
or lands, upon sixty-four dollars per annum in 1785? 
Penuriousness is a crime, offensive to God, and de- 
structive to the soul; but it has seldom been proved 
that good men have been kept out of the ministry be- 
cause of the slender salaries furnished by the Church 
to her ministers. Men that are called of God to 
preach the gospel will find the basket and store sup- 
plied, but the man who regards the ministry as a pro- 
fession which he is to enter as a stepping-stone to 
wealth or honor has yet to learn the first principles 
of the gospel of Christ. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 59 



This struggle for existence threatened to make a celi- 
bate ministry out of the first generation of traveling 
preachers. It is believed that at least two hundred of 
the most efficient preachers in American Methodism 
were lost to the itinerancy within twenty years after 
the organization of the Church. They were compelled 
to "locate," because either the conscience or the ability 
of the Church was inadequate to the support of mar- 
ried ministers. The deplorable alternative presented it- 
self to those who were called of God to preach the gos- 
pel, either to abandon the family or resign the itiner- 
ant ministry. That many able and useful men could 
not see "the present distress," which w T as largely im- 
aginary, is not surprising. But notwithstanding the 
severity of the trial, the Methodist preachers of the 
eighteenth century persevered in their benevolent 
work, and by slow degrees the heart of the Church 
was opened, and devised more liberal things. 

But to return. If fifty pounds a year could afford 
maintenance in England, why did not a hundred pounds 
in America ? Did the absence of deaneries, prebends, 
and bishoprics account for it? There were no high 
prizes in the colonies — only the souls of men to be 
saved from death and sin; hence, the laborers were 
few. At one time there were fifty parishes and ten 
clergymen* A bounty of one hundred pounds ster- 
ling was offered to any one who would bring a "suffi- 
cient minister " into the colony.f " Many came, such 
as wore black coats, and could babble in a pulpit, roare 
in a tavern, exact from their parishioners, and rather 
by their disolutenesse destroy than feed their flocks.''^ 

-"-Protestant Episcopal Chiirch in Virginia, p 64. f Hammond's 
Leah and Rachel, quoted by Dr. Hawks, p. 64. J Ibid., p. 65. 



60 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



In process of time a crisis arose which tested the re- 
ligion and the patriotism, not to say the humanity, of 
" the clergy." 

The law of 1748 gave specifically sixteen thousand 
pounds of tobacco as the salary of the minister of a 
parish. In 1757, during the war with the French, there 
was a failure in the tobacco crop. It was not possible to 
pay the salaries of the clergy if every pound of the sta- 
ple had been used for that purpose. It was a time of 
great distress. It was just and proper, as it was inevita- 
ble, that the clergy should suffer in common with their 
people. The price of tobacco was raised to fifty shil- 
lings the hundred pounds. At this rate the salary of 
a minister would amount to two thousand dollars — an 
enormous sum in those days. The people could not 
pay it, and the Legislature came to their relief. The 
scarcity was so great that money was issued from the 
public funds to save the people from starvation. The 
Legislature enacted a law that the clergy should receive 
"a price for their salaries equal to crop-tobacco at 
eighteen shillings per hundred weight."* This was 
an advance of fifty per cent, upon the usual stipend 
allowed, and was a righteous and timely measure that 
should have received the commendation of all; but the 
clergy were aroused at this trespass upon their rights, 
and Dr. Hawks thinks that they had the best of the. 
argument in a moral point of view. As a question of 
law, it does not appear to be an outrage if a party 
who employs another should diminish his wages, pro- 
vided the reason of the case justifies such a step. As 
a question of fact, in the money product the Legisla- 
ture increased, rather than diminished, the salaries. 



-Protestant Episcopal Church in Virginia, p. 118. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 61 



That they were paid in an article of merchandise, 
which was liable to rise and fall with the markets 
abroad or the supplies at home, was a contingency ex- 
pressed in the face of the contract between the min- 
ister and the vestry. As a matter of public policy it 
was certainly unjust that a few men should receive 
four times as much as was due them, at the time that 
their parishioners were absolutely in want of bread. 
That a class of men calling themselves servants of God 
and embassadors of Christ should call for the pound 
of flesh due them in the strict letter of the bond, was 
a source of scandal that justly subjected the guilty 
parties to popular censure. 

" There was growing up in men's minds a gradual 
alienation from the Church," says Dr. Hawks * " be- 
cause it was identified with those who were suspected 
of being more anxious to enrich themselves than to 
benefit the souls of others; and men began to admit 
the suspicion that the Establishment was proving a 
burden instead of a blessing." These are very mild 
words, but they are significant. The fact was, that 
the forbearance of the Legislature saved the "Estab- 
lishment " from utter destruction. The officious Mr. 
Camm, the "commissary" of the Bishop of London, 
attacked the Legislature in all kinds of offensive arti- 
cles, until no newspaper in Virginia would give cur- 
rency to his assaults. By means of the commissary 
the act of the Legislature was reviewed by the Lords 
of Trade in London, and as the King had not ap- 
proved the act, it was determined to make a test case 
on the salary question. 

* Protestant Episcopal Church in Virginia, p. 120. 



Ghapfeep If. 

Mr. Maury, of Hanover— The Parson's Cause— First appearance of 
Patrick Henry— A great Speech and a great Triumph— Seeds of 
Revolution— Renewed Efforts for the Episcopate— A Protest- 
Vote of Thanks— Blessing in Disguise— Jacobite Bishops— Polit- 
ical Intrigues— Talbot and Welton— Bishop of Oxford— Validity 
of the Consecration of Talbot and Welton— Gracious Results of 
Episcopal Ordination— Balm for New England. 

REV. ME. MAURY, of Hanover, brought suit to 
recover damages against his vestry. The case 
proceeded in due form, and was about to be decided in 
favor of the clergyman, when a new phase of the ques- 
tion appeared. The law of 1748 allowing sixteen 
thousand pounds of tobacco was plain enough. The 
act of 1757, making a commutation in money at a giv- 
en rate, was proved to be invalid, because it had been 
rejected by the King. Thus, in 1763 the issue was 
joined, the points proved, and the case was delivered 
to the jury by Mr. Maury's counsel, in perfect confi- 
dence of a large sum of damages to be assessed for 
the benefit of his client. The lawyer employed by the 
defense, seeing defeat inevitable, withdrew from the 
case. But there was present in the court-room a 
young man whose name has since become as famous 
as the cause he advocated in 1776. Patrick Henry 
stood for the first time before a jury. " He had been 
employed upon the withdrawal of the former counsel; 
and as the very loose practice of that day permitted 
very great latitude of remark in advocates, Avhen he 
(02) 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



63 



came before the jury, instead of entering upon a calm 
investigation of the amount of damages actually sus- 
tained, he skillfully played upon the passions of his 
hearers, aroused their prejudices, and poured forth 
torrents of eloquence upon the decision of the King 
in council, as indicating a wanton disregard of the 
true interests of a suffering people, and a heartless 
contempt of their necessities, It is very certain that 
all this had nothing to do with the question before the 
jury; but they readily imbibed sentiments so much in 
accordance with their interests and so agreeable to 
their prejudices against the clergy; and carried away 
by an eloquence as extraordinary as it was unexpect- 
ed (for it was Mr. Henry's first cause in any court), 
they yielded to their feelings, and returned a verdict 
of one penny damages." * 

Mr. Wirt, the biographer of Henry, presents the 
scene in very vivid colors. The young orator was em- 
barrassed by the fact that his uncle, a clergyman, was 
upon the ground, and expected to be present at the 
trial. He was persuaded by the young lawyer to ab- 
sent himself, because Henry intended to say " many 
hard things about the clergy." There was another 
cause for embarrassment — Patrick Henry's father was 
the presiding magistrate, and twenty clergymen were 
on the bench by the side of the judges.f With these 
facts before us, we can appreciate the picture as it has 
been painted by a later hand. J ohn Esten Cooke thus 
describes the scene in which Patrick Henry won the 
title of the " Prophet of the Revolution: " 

"A remarkable scene followed. Henry rose to ad- 

* Protestant Episcopal Church in Virginia, p, 123. f Wirt's Life 
of Patrick Henry, p. 42. 



64 



Tlte fligh-chnrchman Disarmed: 



dress the jury in presence of a great crowd. He had 
never before spoken in public, and at first his voice 
faltered. He hung his head, and seemed to be over- 
whelmed; but soon a strange transformation took 
place in his appearance. His head rose haughtily 
erect, and as he proceeded his delivery grew passion- 
ate. He bitterly denounced the clergy, a number of 
whom retired in indignation from the court-house; 
and stigmatized the King, who had supported their 
demands, as a tyrant who had forfeited all claim to 
obedience. At this the counsel for the plaintiff cried, 
'The gentleman has spoken treason!' but Henry's 
language only grew more violent. The crowd around 
him swayed to and fro, in evident sympathy with the 
speaker, who with passionate vehemence insisted that 
the burgesses of Virginia were 'the only authority 
which could give force to the laws for the government 
of this colony.' The words were treason, since they 
defied the royal authority; and when the jury retired 
the crowd was in the wildest commotion. Five min- 
utes afterward the jury returned with a verdict fixing 
the damages at 'one penny,' and a loud shout of ap- 
plause followed. The jury, like the young orator, 
had defied the will of the King; and when court ad- 
journed, Patrick Henry was caught up and borne on 
the shoulders of the excited crowd, around the court- 
green in triumph. 

"Such was the famous 'Parsons' Cause.' An ob- 
scure lawsuit had assumed the proportions of an his- 
toric event. A great assemblage in one of the most 
important counties of Virginia had wildly cheered 
Henry's denunciation of the Crown and his demand 
that the authority of the burgesses of Virginia should 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



05 



take precedence of the authority of the King of En- 
gland." * 

The growth of a popular opinion which aroused 
hostility to the monarchy itself was no encouraging 
prospect for the Church establishment. But it fre- 
quently happens that the presence of a great danger 
does not alarm those who are most concerned in its 
threatenings. The great majority of the clergymen 
in Virginia must have seen that this was no time to agi- 
tate the question of establishing a Church hierarchy 
in America. But the restless spirits of the North 
persevered in their "appeals," addressed sometimes 
to the King, sometimes to the people of Great Britain, 
and sometimes to the people in the colonies. The 
prejudices aroused against the Church by the conduct 
of the Virginia clergymen were exceeded, if possible, 
by the combined forces which were arrayed against an 
American episcopate in New England and the middle 
colonies. The controversy of 1768 developed the 
most formidable difficulties in the way of the pe- 
titioners, but they did not abandon their project. 
As the laymen became more and more tinctured 
with the republican spirit, they ceased to unite with 
the missionaries in their efforts to obtain a resident 
bishop. Finally the clergy stood quite alone, but not 
in the slightest degree abashed or moderated in their 
enthusiasm. Many of the laity opposed the move- 
ment, and some of these joined in the public protest 
against it in 1768. T ohn Adams pronounced this con- 
troversy to be one of the principal causes of the 
American Be volution, f 

* John Esten Cooke's History of the People of Virginia, p. 382. 
f Puritans and Their Principles, p. 399. 



66 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



So far from giving up in despair, we find the inde- 
fatigable Drs. Seabury, Chandler, and others, com- 
missioning two of their number to visit the Southern 
colonies, and induce them to cooperate with the mis- 
sionaries. Mr. Camm, the commissary of the Bishop 
of London, became as conspicuous in this enterprise, 
as he had been in causing a resort to the courts in the 
famous salary controversy. But the times were not 
propitious, and even the representative of the Bishop 
of London had lost his influence. People remem- 
bered that the bishop had no legal jurisdiction, and 
that the law advisers of the Crown had declared that 
he had none in Virginia, or anywhere else in the col- 
onies.-- If the Bishop of London had no authority 
over the clergy in America, his commissary had none. 
Therefore, when Mr. Commissary Camm summoned 
the clergy, by public advertisement, to meet at Will- 
iam and Mary College, on the 4th of May, 1771, of 
nearly one hundred clergymen not a third part at- 
tended the meeting. So small was the representation 
that it was deemed prudent to adjourn, and call an- 
other convention of the clerical members of the 
Church. A month afterward, in response to this call, 
twelve clergymen assembled at the college, and en- 
tered upon the work of framing the desired petitions. 
At first it was decided not to send an address to the 
King, but this vote was reconsidered, and a resolution 
was passed ordering an address to the King upon the 
subject of an episcopate. In opposition to this move- 
ment were two of the professors in the college — • 
Messrs. Henly and Swathin. They favored the epis- 
copal mode of Church government, but they regarded 

-•History of Maryland, by William ITan 1 Browne, p. 102. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 67 



it as altogether inexpedient to attempt at that time to 
establish a system which had incurred the active hos- 
tility of a large part, perhaps a majority, of the peo- 
ple. They prepared a protest against the action of 
the meeting, basing their opposition upon several 
grounds. They contended that a dozen men could be 
called, in no proper sense, a convention representative 
of nearly a hundred ministers. The proposed address 
to the King did not exhibit due respect to the Bishop 
of London, and the disturbances occasioned by the 
Stamp Act, together with the recent rebellion in 
North Carolina, were reasons of sufficient weight, not 
to mention the general clamor at that time against the 
introduction of bishops. 

When the Legislature met a resolution of thanks to 
the signers of the protest was adopted, nemine cent ra- 
il ice nte, in the following terms: 

"Fesolved, That the thanks of this House be given 
to the Eev. Mr. Henly, the Eev. Mr. Swatkin, the 
Eev. Mr. Hewitt, and the Eev. Mr. Bland, for the wise 
and well-timed opposition they have made to the per- 
nicious project of a few mistaken clergymen, for in- 
troducing an American bishop; a measure by which 
much disturbance, great anxiety and apprehension 
would certainly take place among his Majesty's faith- 
ful American subjects; and that Mr. Eichard Henry 
Lee and Mr. Bland do acquaint them therewith."* 

A controversy followed, between the clergy of the 
North and those of the South, and pamphlets were 
exchanged by the parties, until questions of a more 
important character absorbed the attention of the 
people. Upon the wh ole, it can scarcely be doubted 
-Protestant Episcopal Church in Virginia, p. 129. 



68 



The Tligli-cliurchman Disarmed; 



that the defeat of this measure, if not " a blessing in 
disguise," was at least an escape from an issue which 
might have utterly destroyed the episcopal interest in 
the United States. " Twice was the goodly plan frus- 
trated," says Dr. McVickar, in his Memoir of Bishop 
Hobart, " when on the very point of completion. In 
the reign of Charles II., as already noted, the patent 
was actually made out, appointing Rev. Dr. Alexander 
Murray, a good man, and the companion of the King's 
exile, Bishop of Virginia, with a general charge over 
the other provinces; but the scheme fell through by 
a change of ministry ; .and what Clarendon had done, 
the 'cabal' revoked, though the deeper cause proba- 
bly was that the King himself had no heart in the 
matter. A second time, in the reign of Anne, was 
provision made, a scheme of four American bishop™ 
rics adopted, and certain government lands in the isl- 
and of St. Kitts actually sold for their endowment. 
The death of the Queen cut this short, and although 
subsequently approved and recommended by the Ursa 
and ablest men of the Church — by Berkeley, Butler, 
Gibson, Sherlock, and above all by that meekest of 
prelates, Archbishop Seeker, it was never carried into 
effect. Berkeley not only wrote for it, but worked for 
it; he gave up rank and ease at home, to come over 
and lay the foundation of it, and would doubtless 
have succeeded, had not the provision for it been 
basely withdrawn after the accession of the House of 
Hanover — an act worthy of a court where ' Walpole 
ruled and Hoadley preached.' But the godless union 
of Church and State forbade it, and the time for ac- 
tion passed by." - 

* Memoir of Bishop Hobart, p. 82. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



69 



This is strange language from an American citizen, 
from one who detests the " godless union of Church 
and State." To desire a transfer of that " "godless 
union" to his own country he calls a "goodly plan," 
and argues as if the constitution and government of 
the kingdom of Christ were dependent upon a vote of 
the English Parliament, and the honesty of a British 
politician. Let us hope that there are few, if any, 
who coincide with these opinions in the latter part of 
the nineteenth century. 

But what shall we say when we are informed by un- 
questionable authority that bishops were ordained and 
sent over to America more than fifty years before the 
American Revolution? The testimony is at hand. 
Alluding to the petitions sent to the mother country, 
Bishop Wilberforce says: " From all parts of the con- 
tinent memorials were still sent home, though the 
greatest earnestness upon the subject was manifested 
in the Northern colonies, where, as we have seen, there 
was, from many causes, most of the life and vigor of 
religion." Let us pause a moment and reflect. This 
Church of England writer confesses that where the 
Episcopal influence in America was smallest, there 
"the life and vigor of religion" appeared in the 
greatest degree! Wherever Episcopalianism pre- 
vailed religion declined; where it was little known, re- 
ligion flourished! 

"One of these addresses," continues the Bishop, 
"touched on grounds that might have moved even Sir 
Robert Walpole. The bishops who had been deprived 
of their temporalities for refusing to take the oath of 
allegiance to William III., did not thereby lose their 
spiritual character. They had still, therefore, as of 



70 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



old, the power of conferring holy orders, and of con- 
secrating other bishops by the laying on of hands, al- 
though their doing so was plainly 'irregular and 
schismatical.' This step, unhappily, they took, at the 
imminent risk of entailing a fearful schism in the En- 
glish Church. Having founded a counter episcopate 
at home, they could feel little scruple in granting to 
America that boon which England had so long and so 
unwarrantably -withheld from her. It was therefore 
natural that some of the American clergy should look 
to them for succor, and that they should lend a favora- 
ble ear to their requests. Accordingly, Dr. Welton, 
and Mr. Talbot — the oldest missionary of the Society 
for the Propagation of the Gospel — solicited and re- 
ceived consecration from the non-juring bishops. Dr. 
Welton was consecrated by Dr. Kalph Taylor, in 1722; 
Mr. Talbot shortly afterward by Drs. Taylor andWelton. 
Political disqualification made them unable to perform 
publicly any episcopal acts; but there is reason to be- 
lieve that they privately administered the rite of confir- 
mation, and in some cases at least ordained clergy."* 
Let the reader keep in mind the fact that the Bish- 
op of Oxford admits the validity of these ordinations. 
It is true that the non-juring bishops were deposed 
from their offices, and were no longer bishops of the 
Church of England, but they could, nevertheless, or- 
dain bishops, as many as they pleased, and whenever 
they pleased, for the Church of Christ throughout the 
world! According to this doctrine the bishops that 
Queen Elizabeth deposed were still bishops, and could 
ordain any number of bishops, because they did not 

* History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America, by the 
Bishop of Oxford, p. 160. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



71 



lose their spiritual character in the loss of "temporal- 
ities." The Roman Catholic bishops who adhered to 
the old faith were bishops, but bishops of what? And 
of what Church was Dr. Taylor a bishop? Not of the 
Church of England, certainly, nor of Ireland, nor of 
Scotland. He had no " see," no legal status whatever. 
But he could ordain bishops, and did send two skulk- 
ing ecclesiastics into America in defiance of the laws 
of the country! 

"The Rev. John Talbot," says Dr. Beardsley, "the 
associate of Mr. Keith in his missionary travels, and 
afterward stationed at Burlington, New J ersey, visited 
England in 1720. While there he, with Rev. Dr. 
Welton, was consecrated to the episcopal office by the 
non-juring bishops, and returned to Burlington. Wel- 
ton came to Philadelphia, and officiated for a time in 
Christ Church in that city. '"Such a step,' says Haw- 
kins, 'admits of no justification; but we may well 
suppose that he (Talbot) was led to take it by no per- 
sonal ambition, but by that strong and earnest convic- 
tion of the absolute necessity of an episcopate for the 
welfare of the Church in America, of which his let- 
ters afford such abundant testimony. It appears that 
he occasionally assumed the episcopal dress, and that 
he administered the ordinance of confirmation. What- 
ever confusion or schism might have arisen by the ir- 
regular exercise of the episcopal office was prevented 
by an order from the Privy Council for Welton's re- 
turn to England, and the death of Mr. Talbot, which 
occurred in 1727." * 

These statements are recorded by writers who have 
undertaken to furnish the history of the Pr otesta nt 
* History of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut, vol. L, p. 252, note. 



72 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



Episcopal Church; but, like many other important 
facts concerning that Church, there are not wanting 
some to deny or to question the truth of the story. 
Mr. De Costa, in the sketch of the " Colonial Church," 
prefixed to Dr. White's Memoirs, speaking of Talbot, 
says: "There appears to be no evidence that the 
Church can accept of the episcopal character claimed 
for him. He never performed any episcopal act, 
and he denied that he ever attempted to exercise 
any supervision of his brethren."* Dr. Hawks, in 
his memorials of the Episcopal Church in Maryland, 
thinks there is no doubt of Talbot's consecration, but 
Mr. De Costa traces the story to Percival, in his 
"Apology for Apostolical Succession," and leaves the 
matter in doubt. 

Bishop Wilberforce, on the other hand, produces a 
genuine case of blessedness resulting from the conse- 
crating hands of Dr. Welton; and it is a suggestive inci- 
dent that furnishes the proof of transmitted apostolic 
powers. "A Congregational teacher in New England," 
says the Bishop of Oxford, " shortly before this time be- 
gan to doubt the lawfulness of his appointment to the 
ministry. His doubt and fears were often hinted, and 
became well known amongst his people. About the 
time of Dr. Welton's visit he left home for a few 
weeks, giving no intimation of the object or direction 
of his journey. On his return he resumed his pas- 
toral charge, and now declared himself entirely con- 
tented with his ministerial commission. Whence this 
contentment sprung he never expressly stated, but there 
were reasons for the universal belief that he had re- 
ceived at Dr. Welton's hands the gift of ordination." f 
* Colonial Church, p. 36. f History of Prot. Ep. Church, p. 161. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 73 



This is a specimen of the acts of superstition at- 
tributed to the colonial clergymen of non-episcopal 
Churches; but it seems to be one of those cases that 
were manufactured, either in part or in whole, for the 
purpose of creating sympathy in England. The pa- 
thos of the picture is very striking. A descendant 
of the Pilgrims of Plymouth has a troubled con- 
science. He imagines that the hands that once laid 
bloody stripes upon his forefathers can heal his wound- 
ed spirit by transmitting through his head the apos- 
tolic grace that his heart needs very much. He flies 
by night, through desert and forest, until he can get 
the sight of a man who has recently accompanied with 
some outlawed ecclesiastics of the mother country. 
This man who carries episcopal grace in his hands is 
obliged to move in profound secrecy. The men who 
"consecrated" him were guilty of a crime according 
to the laws of Episcopal England, and a secret con- 
clave met to give him charge of the flock of Christ 
in America! But such are the conditions that he be- 
comes a political pest and source of corruption to the 
people and the clergy. " It is certain," wrote one of 
the missionaries, " that the Non-jurors have sent over 
two bishops into America, and one of them has trav- 
eled through the country upon a design to promote 
that cause."* Now, this obedient subject of the 
House of Hanover, Congregationalist that he is, finds 
the consecrated hands of Dr. Welton, has them laid 
upon his head, and returns home, having " the gift of 
ordination" by the grace of his Majesty, the Eoman 
Catholic Pretender, James III. So soon after the abor- 
tive political movement of 1715, it was an act of wis- 
* History of Protestant Episcopal Church, p. 162. 



74 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



dom to keep the name of that pretended Congrega- 
tional clergyman a profound secret also. 

This is one version of the story. Another is, or 
might be rendered, that the troubled minister, hav- 
ing time and solitude for reflection in his journey, 
seeing that the "apostolical succession" could only 
reach him through an act of treason to the govern- 
ment under which he lived, concluded that it was bet- 
ter to plead a commission from Christ Jesus the Lord 
than one from a fugitive Eoman Catholic in Europe, 
and "went down to his house justified" by a sober 
second thought! 

However the fact may be, it does not appear that 
the non-episcopal writers in the "American Whig " of 
1768 had any knowledge of this Jacobite episode of 
Talbot and Welton. No mention is made of these 
pretended bishops, and Episcopal writers in this coun- 
try, when they mention the matter at all, are content 
to consign it to a foot-note. We shall see, however, 
in the course of this volume, the effort of another set 
of non-juring bishops to give episcopacy to America. 



A Scriptural Bishop Wanted — Source of Ministerial Authority — Sir 
William Blackstone — The King's Credentials — Authority and 
Jurisdiction— Queen Elizabeth and Bishop Cox — Unfrocking a 
Bishop — Man-made Ministry — Baptists try the Episcopal Form 
of Church Government — Two Dioceses in the Baptist Church ot 
Virginia — Episcopacy Scriptural — Bishops Elected and Ordained : 
Harris, Waller, and Craig — Duties of the Baptist Bishops — Dr. 
Howell's Opinion — Failure of Baptist Episcopacy — Accounting 
for this Episode — Blackstone Opposed to Keligious Liberty — En- 
glish Bishops compelled to Ordain the King's Appointees — Des- 
potism in Church and State — Book of Homilies — Hallam — 
Spiritural Sovereignty in America — Schism of Archbishop San- 
croft and the English Non-jurors — Break in the Apostolical Suc- 
cession. 

HEN the American Episcopalians were striv- 
ing to secure a resident bishop for the colo- 
nies, they declared that they desired only a scriptural 
bishop. They did not state the precise meaning which 
they attached to the phrase *' scriptural." It was a 
very delicate, if not invidious task indeed, and might 
have incurred the displeasure of their ecclesiastical 
lords in England. It is certain that the officer known 
in the New Testament as an episcopos, or bishop, had 
no civil jurisdiction or authority attached to his office. 
To the extent then that the English bishops were civil 
officers by virtue of their ecclesiastical positions, they, 
were, in the proper sense of the term, unscriptural 
bishops. 

" The clergy of the Church of England," says Sir 
William Blackstone, " in matters of external polity 



76 



The High-ch urch mun Disarmed: 



and of private right, derive all their title from the civil 
magistrate; they look up to the King as their head, to 
the Parliament as their lawgiver, and pride them- 
selves in nothing more justly than in being true mem- 
bers of the Church, emphatically by law established."* 
This attitude of the clergy is the inevitable result of 
an Established Church on the one part, and of the the- 
ory which makes episcopacy the Jons et origo — the one 
absolute source of ministerial authority — on the other. 
The source of episcopal authority is the chief magis- 
trate of the country, and therefore all ministerial au- 
thority is derived from the King. This will appear 
to be evident when we consider the royal mandate, 
the terms of which were fixed in the reign of Edward 
VI. : " We name, make, create, constitute, and declare 
K. Bishop of K, to have and to hold to himself the 
said bishoprics during the term of his natural life, if for 
so long a time he behave himself well therein; and ice 
empower him to confer orders, to institute to livings, to 
exercise all manner of jurisdiction, and to do all that 
appertains to the episcopal or pastoral office, over and 
above the things known to have been committed to 
him by God in the Scriptures, in place of as, in our 
name, and by our royal authority.'" f 

It has been argued that the bishop receives his epis- 
copal authority by virtue of his consecration, and that 
the King only gives him jurisdiction in the see to 
which he is appointed. This is an ingenious plea, but 
it will not bear a close scrutiny. What is " authority " 
without "jurisdiction?" and what right has a king to 
give either of these things in a Christian Church? 

* Blackstone's Commentaries, B. IV., c. 8, 104. f Trials of a 
Mind, by Bishop Ives, p. 147. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 77 



Has the King absolute spiritual jurisdiction? Is the 
chief magistrate a bishop? If not, how can a layman 
confer that which he does not possess? Has Queen 
Victoria any spiritual jurisdiction in the Church of 
England? If she hae, whence was it derived — of God 
or of men? If of men, it is worthless; for Jesus 
Christ is the Sovereign Head of his Church. If she 
derives it of God, then is she called by the Holy Ghost 
to the functions of the Christian ministry. If a bish- 
op ordains a minister in the name of the Queen and 
by the authority of the Queen, then her Majesty may 
ordain a candidate in her own person. That which is 
done through an agent may be done in propria persona, 
by the principal. If the Head of the Church cannot 
call, consecrate, and constitute a bishop in the Church 
of England without the consent of the Queen, then 
the Church of England, as such, is no part of the sov- 
ereign kingdom of Christ. 

The tenor of this argument is destructive to all Es- 
tablished Churches, wherever they may be, and under 
whatever form of government they may exist. It is 
not denied that kings may be pious men; that they 
may appoint worthy ministers of the gospel to high 
places of trust and honor, but it is affirmed that our 
Lord and Saviour has never placed the sovereign au- 
thority of his Church in the hands of any man, wheth- 
er styled a king, defender of the faith, or a pope — the 
bishop of bishops. The two theories of Church gov- 
ernment are equally untenable, equally foreign to the 
letter and to the spirit of the Holy Scriptures. 

When Cox, Bishop of Ely, refused to permit his 
property to be sacrificed for the advantage of another, 
Queen Elizabeth sent him a significant message: 



78 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



" Proud prelate," wrote the irate Queen, "you know what 
you were before I made you what you are. If you do 
not immediately comply with my request, I will unfrock 
you." * This was no empty boast. The Bishop knew 
very well that she would be as good as her word, and 
submitted to the spoliation. High -churchmen have 
a great deal to say about a " man-made ministry." 
What is this? What is the character of that episco- 
pacy which can be made and unmade at the whim of 
a capricious woman ? Can that be a Church of Christ 
in which the sovereign power is exercised by a man or 
a woman who happens to be born an heir to a reign- 
ing monarch? Can the accident of birth determine 
and supply the qualifications of the chief ruler in the 
house of God? 

These evils are not inseparable from the episcopal 
form of Church government, nor are they, perhaps, 
essential to the union of Church and State. In some 
form or degree corruptions have been engendered in 
every country that has a national Church — corruptions 
that would have no existence in a Church untram- 
meled by the State. But episcopacy, as such, has no 
connection with lawless power, and no necessary tend- 
ency to introduce unscriptural and pernicious prac- 
tices into the kingdom of Christ. There is a conserv- 
ative influence in a moderate and scriptural form of 
episcopal government. But the source of all author- 
ity in the kingdom of Christ is the Lord himself, act- 
ing through, and giving his sanction to, the appoint- 
ments made by the Church in his name. 

The experiment of the Baptist Churches in Virgin- 
ia, in the last century, demonstrated that episcopacy 

*Sir John Harington's Nugne Antiquse, vol. i., p. 319. 



A Defense of Oar Methodist Fathers. 



79 



is an impracticable system of government for a large 
portion of the Lord's people. For several years prior 
to 1776, the Baptists of Virginia discussed the expe- 
diency of adopting an episcopal form of government. 
The discussion was thorough, and the conclusion was 
arrived at in 1776, by the General Association of Vir- 
ginia Baptists. By a unanimous vote they declared 
that episcopacy had been established in the Church by 
Christ, the Head, and that the office of bishop "was 
now in use in Christ's Church." Having determined 
tl*s question, they proceeded to establish the office, 
and fill it by appointment * The Rev. Samuel Har- 
ris was elected the first bishop, and all that part of 
Virginia lying south of the James River was declared 
to be his diocese. In the autumn of the same year 
the Association was called together, and they proceed- 
ed to elect two more bishops— John Waller and Eli- 
jah Craig. The diocese of these coadjutor bishops 
was all of the State lying north of the James River. 
The three ministers elevated to the episcopal office by 
their Baptist brethren were men of distinction who 
had suffered for the preaching of the gospel only two 
years before this time. Imprisoned for weeks, and 
some of them for months, they were not men to enter 
upon any office in the Church without careful and 
prayerful consideration. They were not enacting a 
comedy, but they were in earnest, and went forth into 
the harvest-fields of Virginia as regularly constituted 
bishops of the Baptist Episcopal Church. 

The duties assigned to these officers were as follows: 
"To pervade the churches; to do, or at least to see to, 
the work of ordination; to set in order the tlringsjthat 

* Howell's Early Baptists of Virginia, p. 107, 



80 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



are wanting; and to make report to the next Associa- 
tion." " The revolution in Church polity," says How- 
ell, "is now complete. It was achieved not without 
much excitement and discussion, but without any di- 
vision. The circumstances that surrounded them did 
not admit of division; their political influence, not 
to say their safety, would have, been endangered by 
it; they could not successfully resist the revolution, 
they therefore accepted it unanimously. The General 
Association had assumed powers not exceeded by any 
previous body of clergy in any age, Catholic or Prot- 
estant. Not only had it created and sent forth three 
diocesan bishops, under the name of 'apostles, or 
messengers,' but it had taken them— unlike the En- 
glish Baptists— from the jurisdiction of the individu- 
al churches of which they were members, to whose 
discipline they were no longer subject; ordination of 
ministers was removed from the churches and given 
to the bishops; it instructed the churches how to pro- 
ceed in case they should commit offenses demanding 
their impeachment; and if in this lower court an in- 
dictment was sustained, it provided for the organiza- 
tion of a high court to be called 'A General Confer- 
ence of the Churches,' which should have power to 
'excommunicate or restore them.' "* 

"All this," says Dr. Howell, "was monstrous." The 
new bishops went forth to "pervade the churches," 
but these loyal sons of independence would not con- 
sent to be "pervaded." A reaction followed. The 
principal advocates of episcopacy had failed to secure 
election to the coveted honor, and before another year 
had expired it was discovered that episcopacy be- 
""' Howell's Early Baptists of Virginia, p. 110. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



81 



longed to the Jewish temple, and not to the Christian 
church. The bishops disappeared from office and 
from history, and ' 'gladly resumed their places beside 
their brother presbyters."* 

It has been stated, in explanation of this episode in 
Church history, that a great number of converts from 
the Church of England had been brought into the 
Baptist churches, and that these new converts brought 
their episcopal opinions with them. This does not 
appear to be a satisfactory reason for a change from 
Congregationalism to episcopacy, two widely separated 
systems. But whatever it was that caused the trans- 
formation, no one except a High-churchman could de- 
ny the right of the Baptist Church to establish an 
episcopal form of government, if the people desired 
to do so. He who denies the right to choose the 
methods of advancing the cause of the Bedeemer, 
must be able to prove that there is a definite, fixed 
form of Church government recorded in the New Tes- 
tament, and that conformity thereto is required by the 
special command of the Lord Jesus. Inferences will 
not do, because they are capable of abuses too numer- 
ous and too dangerous to render them reliable. It is 
a most audacious spirit that dares to usurp the author- 
ity of Christ himself, to bless those whom he has not 
blessed, and to curse those whom he has not con- 
demned. And yet this spirit is the legitimate prod- 
uct of an Established Church. Erastian principles are 
interwoven into the modes of English thought and 
feeling to such an extent that they manifest them- 
selves in the expounders of the law, as well as among 
ecclesiastical politicians. Sir William Blackstone de- 
* Howell's Early Baptists of Virginia, p. 115. 

6 



82 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



clares religious liberty to be incompatible with civil 
allegiance to a sovereign authority. His words can 
scarcely bear any other construction. " Whereas the 
notions of ecclesiastical liberty," he says, "as well in 
one extreme as the other (for I here only speak of ex- 
tremes) are equally and totally destructive of those 
ties and obligations by which all society is kept to- 
gether; equally encroaching on those rights which 
reason and the original contract of every free State in 
the universe have vested in the sovereign power; and 
equally aiming at a distinct, independent supremacy 
of their own, where spiritual men and spiritual caus- 
es are concerned."* 

If " spiritual men " are not to be independent and 
supreme in spiritual causes, the Church of Christ is 
not free. By "spiritual men" we understand the 
members of the spiritual body of Christ; and for 
these, in questions that appertain to the well-being of 
Christ's kingdom — in other words, in " spiritual caus- 
es " — we must claim independence of civil magistrates, 
and "supremacy of their own." In civil matters, in 
all questions involving the rights of the citizen as 
such, the State is sovereign, and cannot know any 
power or authority superior to itself; but in questions 
of religious and moral principle, affecting the spirit- 
ual welfare of the citizen; not as a component part of 
the commonwealth, but as a member of the Church of 
Christ, it is folly to say that the State has supreme 
jurisdiction, or any jurisdiction whatever. If there 
be any meaning in our Saviour's declaration which is 
applicable to modern society, then the statement that 
the kingdom of Christ is not of this world must be 
- Blackstone's Commentaries, B. IV., c. 8, 104. 



A Defense of Oar Methodist Fathers. 



83 



understood as drawing a distinct line of separation 
between the civil and spiritual jurisdictions to which 
men are subject. Blackstone's theory of government 
not only destroys the independence of the kingdom of 
Christ, but utterly subverts and overthrows all pre- 
tense of authority in the Church. It is true that his 
immediate object was to combat the claim of spiritual 
allegiance to the Bishop of Borne, and the efforts of 
the papacy to withdraw ecclesiastics from civil juris- 
diction. The " benefit of clergy " caused many felons 
to escape all punishment, and established a privileged 
class which had no restraint whatever. This was an 
evil of great magnitude, but when it was farther de- 
manded that "spiritual persons "—monks or priests 
of the Koman Church— should be exempt from arrest, 
imprisonment, or punishment by the civil power, the 
degradation of the State became complete. But there 
is a vast difference between subjecting the State to 
the tyranny of the Church and the exercise of legiti- 
mate and necessary functions given by the Sovereign 
Head of the Church to his subjects and followers for 
their own protection, well-being, and furtherance to- 
ward eternal happiness. 

The King of Great Britain, or his prime-minister, 
may send the name of a clergyman to be elected bish- 
op, by a dean and chapter. If the electors refuse to 
vote for the man chosen by the King, they subject 
themselves to the statute of praemunire; and if a bish- 
op or archbishop should refuse to ordain a man ap- 
pointed by the King, every one so refusing incurs the 
same penalty.'" 

The serious character of this penalty is seen in the 



*Blackstone 7 IV., c. 8, 115. 



84 



The Htgh-c] l urch man Disarmed: 



terms, "that from the conviction the defendant shall 
be out of the King's protection, and his lands and ten- 
ements, goods and chattels forfeited to the King; and 
that his body shall remain in prison at the King's 
pleasure. . . . Such delinquent, though protected Is 
a part of the public from public wrongs, can bring no 
action for any private injury, how atrocious soever 
being so far out of the protection of the law that it 
will not guard his civil rights, nor remedy any griev- 
ance which he as an individual may suffer. And no 
man, knowing him to be guilty, can with safety give 
him comfort, aid, or relief." * 

A bishop ordaining another bishop without the con- 
sent of the King would therefore subject himself to 
a species of excommunication. Let us suppose that a 
million of communicants had formally chosen Dr 
VV hite, of Pennsylvania, as Bishop of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in the United States. These souls 
a million m number, cannot authorize the ordination 
ot a bishop, nor can any one. nor all the bishops and 
archbishops in England ordain the bishop elect until 
the King of England, through an act of Parliament, 
has promised to hold the consecrators guiltless * Can 
any man believe that these things are well-pleasin- to 
our Lord and Master? Is it not a wonderful super- 
stition that holds the integrity and the existence of 
the Church of Christ at the option of a man who owes 
his crown to an act of Parliament? 

The result of this subjection of the Church to the 
State is the inevitable growth of despotism in both 
departments of the government. All advocates of the 
union o f Church_agd_State_are^t High-churchmen, 
Blackstone, IV., c. 8, 118. . 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 85 



but all High-churchmen are advocates of this union. 
Eesistance, even if it is developed only in opinions 
expressed, creates resentment and the increase of re- 
pressive measures, until " dissenters" are pronounced 
disloyal and enemies of their country. " That which 
has been called the High-church party in England," 
says Lord John Kussell, "has made itself unfortu- 
nately remarkable for a bitter hatred of liberty and 
toleration."* In the reign of Charles I., the pretend- 
ed Arminian opinions of the higher clergy had been 
cited as the cause of their becoming obnoxious to the 
House of Commons. Hallam tells us that this is a 
mistake. The High-churchmen had "studiously in- 
culcated that resistance to the commands of rulers 
was in every conceivable instance a heinous sin; a ten- 
et so evidently subversive of all civil liberty that it 
can be little worth while to argue about right and 
privilege whenever it has obtained a hold on the un- 
derstanding and conscience of a nation." f 

It was this doctrine of non-resistance that brought 
the party of Archbishop Laud, and that of Hampden, 
Prynne, and Cromwell, face to face in the dread arbit- 
rament of war. But the party hostile to liberty could 
be called in no proper sense "Arminian." They 
agreed with Arminius in rejecting unconditional de- 
crees, but they parted company with him on the doc- 
trine of religious liberty. The gentle-spirited profess- 
or of Leyden had taught with eminent ability the sov- 
ereignty of the human conscience under correction of 
God alone. Laud and his party, with the vast major- 
ity of Englishmen in his time, were for compelling 

"-Life of William Lord Kussell, vol. ii., p. 13. tHallam's Con- 
stitutional History of England, vol. i., p. 305. 



86 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



conformity, at the expense of the individual con- 
science. To do this the kingly power must be abso- 
lute, and resistance to the monarch must be treason in 
all cases whatsoever. Nor was the Church of the 
Beformation silent upon this point. Eevolting from 
Catholicism, England had adopted principles as capa- 
ble of injury to the rights of men as any tenet of the 
Papal Church. 

" God alloweth neither the dignity of any person," 
says the Book of Homilies, " nor the multitude of any 
people, nor the might of any cause, as sufficient for 
the which the subjects may move rebellion against 
their princes. Turn over and read the histories of all 
nations, look over the chronicles of our own country, 
call to mind so many rebellions of old time, and some 
yet fresh in memory; ye shall not find that God ever 
prospered any rebellion against their natural and law- 
ful prince, but contrariwise, that the rebels were over- 
thrown and slain, and such as were taken prisoners 
dreadfully executed."* 

The absurdity of this appeal to history did not ap- 
pear to the writer of the sermon, nor does he seem to 
have been well versed in the annals of his own coun- 
try. King John and his barons ought to have been 
in the mind of every hearer of that sermon, and prob- 
ably there were some to whom the vision of the Great 
Charter was more than a thing of fancy. Whether 
Cranmer wrote that homily or it was written by one 
of his co-laborers does not matter; there, in the recog- 
nized oracles of the Church of England, lies a docu- 
ment which proclaims all resistance to princes to be 
treason, and a crime against the Majesty of heaven 

* Homily against Willful Disobedience and Rebellion. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 87 

itself. Nor is this all. Archbishop Cranmer, if he 
did not write the words of this homily, practiced its 
teachings to the extent of degrading his own office 
and humiliating the Church. During the reign of 
Henry VIII., he advocated the doctrine of non-resist- 
ance; and although he had been created an archbishop 
by Henry, at the commencement of the reign of Ed- 
ward VI. he took out a new commission, to hold the 
see of Canterbury during the pleasure of the King * 
This was a confession that he was an officer of the 
King and not of the Church, and liable to be removed 
at any time by the royal command. 

This subjection of the Church to the State becomes 
a source of perpetual strife in all countries that have 
national churches. The ambition of ecclesiastics as- 
pires to authority and untrammeled power. At the 
same time the convictions of good and true men can- 
not fail to regard the humiliation of the Church as a 
great evil, and destructive to the designs and purposes 
of the kingdom of Christ. Churchmen become con- 
spirators to degrade the State, and make the civil 
power the servant of the ecclesiastical authority. 
This struggle has existed in other countries than those 
in communion with the Eoman Church. " It ought 
always to be remembered that ecclesiastical and not 
merely papal encroachments," says Hallam, " are what 
civil governments and the laity in general have had to 
resist; a point which some very zealous opposers of 
Rome have been willing to keep out of sight. The 
latter arose out of the former, and perhaps were in 
some respects less objectionable. But the true en- 
emy is what are calle d High-church principles, be 
* Hallam, vol. L p. 74. 



88 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



they maintained by a pope, a bishop, or a presby- 
ter."* 

The historian has placed the truth in a clear light 
in the final sentence above quoted. It is the claim to 
domineer over the State and the consciences of men 
that forms the distinctive principle of evil in High- 
church parties, whether they are to be found in the 
Church of Kome, the Church of England, or the Pres- 
byterian Church of Scotland. The divine right of 
kings and the divine right of bishops, although they 
are supported by the same arguments, and are usually 
advocated by the same class of men, yet they are un- 
compromising rivals for sovereign power, and there- 
fore cannot be at peace. The Council of Trent dare 
not acknowledge the divine right of bishops, because 
that acknowledgment, sooner or later, must work the 
overthrow of the sovereign pontiff, the Pope. The di- 
vine right of kings may be confessed by a Church 
that needs civil power to subdue dissent, but when 
the dissenters have conformed, and no internal enemy 
appears, the ecclesiastical power will rise in rebellion 
against the civil, and give to the divine right of bish- 
ops the supreme place in the government of society. 
These are the lessons of history, recorded in the an- 
nals of fifteen centuries. 

It may surprise the reader to learn that spiritual 
sovereignty is claimed by men acting as bishops of a 
Protestant Church in the United States. Chapin, in 
his "Primitive Church," says: "The Father commit- 
ted all judgment to the Son (John v. 22), and at the 
time he instituted the sacrament of the holy com- 
munion he appointed to his apostles (diatithemai, made 
* Middle Age::, vol. ii., p. 244, note. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 89 



over, or committed to thera, as by devise, or bequest) the 
kingdom which the Father had appointed or commit- 
ted to him (Luke xxii. 29) — (ma) — in order that they 
might eat and drink at his table, and sit on thrones 
(the emblems of power), judging (in a judicial sense) the 
twelve tribes (or persons composing 'the commonwealth') 
of Israel (Eph. ii. 22); which in the New Testament 
signifies the Church." * The apostles having received 
this kingdom from Christ, have transmitted it to their 
successors, the bishops, and thus the sovereignty of 
Jesus Christ has been transmitted from age to age, 
until it now resides in the bishops of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church of the United States! This is the 
tenor of Chapin's argument, as summed up by Mr. 
Hall:f "The sum of the whole view is, that what- 
ever power, prerogative, or sovereignty Christ had 
over the Church, he transferred it by commission to 
the apostles, and that sovereignty the bishops now 
hold." " The apostles were raised to the very same 
office which Christ himself held," says Bishop Mc- 
Coskry, of Michigan. "I mean that which belongs to 
him in his human nature as head and governor of the 
Church. They were to supply his place in this respect; 
and in short, to do everything which Christ would have 
done had he continued on the earth. . . . He (Christ) 
is the head and permanent ruler thereof, and although 
now removed from sight, and seated on his mediato- 
rial throne, yet he governs and regulates the Church, 
or kingdom (as it is frequently called), by his consti- 
tuted agents, to whom he has committed the very same 
authority which he received from the Father." % The 

--Primitive Church, p. 173. f Puritans and Their Principles, p. 
302. % Ibid., p. 356. 



90 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



judicious reader must determine how nearly these 
words are akin to blasphemy. That the immaculate, 
unerring spirit of Jesus Christ, Head of the Church, 
has been transmitted through a thousand impious 
hands to sinful mortals who vaunt themselves in high- 
swelling words of exclusive power in the kingdom of 
God, is a proposition which startles the conscience of 
this age. Whereunto will this thing grow? 

Rome makes no higher claim for the sovereign pon- 
tiff. Are we to protest against that claim and admit 
that the same powers are vested in every man who 
calls himself the bishop of a diocese? Are we to give 
up the doctrine of one pope, to substitute for it the 
doctrine of an army of popes? Happily in this coun- 
try we can afford to smile at pretensions that offer fair 
targets for the shafts of ridicule. Our Constitution 
secures liberty of conscience, and no denomination 
can legislate itself into the patronage and power of 
the State. But a hundred years ago it was otherwise. 
Before the independence of the colonies was estab- 
lished, it was a terror that threatened every Non-con- 
formist in America. The High-churchman, support- 
ed by a foreign society, inviting the civil sword of the 
monarchy to strike down his enemies, either concealed 
his principles when secrecy was prudence or openly 
avowed his intentions where he had nothing to fear 
from the threats of the multitude. 

Upon the principles here announced, let us test the 
character of the authority possessed by Bishop Mc- 
Coskry. His titles come from the English Episcopacy, 
and the value of the title is a question of debate. 
There may be ninety-nine links in a chain connected 
together, but if there are one hundred links required 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers, 



91 



to complete the chain, of what value are the ninety- 
nine? Let us suppose that no flaw can be found in 
the succession of the Archbishop of Canterbury up to 
the year 1691. Not a very long period, but one that 
contains events of great magnitude. In 1677 William 
Sancroft was made Archbishop of Canterbury. Ad- 
hering to the House of Stuart, he refused to take the 
oath of allegiance to William III., in 1688, and was 
deposed from office. He had behaved like a true man 
and a true Protestant in resisting the attempts of 
King James to introduce popery into England. Nev- 
ertheless, his conscience would not permit him to set 
aside a popish king who was seeking to destroy the 
Church of England, in favor of a Protestant monarch 
whose title was declared by Act of Parliament and the 
popular will in many forms. Sancroft would not re- 
pudiate his king, nor would he give up his office. The 
mild and forbearing Prince of Orange did not resent 
the refusal of the Archbishop to perform the cere- 
mony of coronation. No efforts of conciliation could 
have any influence with the stubborn Bishop. He re- 
mained at Lambeth, refused to enter the House of 
Lords, or to give any advice concerning public affairs. 
"It seems by no means easy,'" says his biographer, 
Dr. D'Oyly, "for the most partial hand to assign any 
sufficient reason for his conduct, or to suggest any ad- 
equate grounds on which it may be justified."* But 
Sancroft remained in his palace, and resisted every 
intimation that he ought to remove from the palace of 
a see whose duties he was not permitted or not dis- 
posed to perform. King William suffered the friends 
of the Archbishop to visit him for the purpose of con- 



* Life of Sancroft, vol. i.. p. 430. 



92 The High-churcliman Disarmed: 



vmcing him of the propriety of yielding to the voice 
- of the nation at large, and to that end granted him 
several months for consideration. Never was stub- 
born subject more tenderly dealt with by a generous 
monarch. The King had extended the time until the 
first day of August, 1790-nearly one year and ten 
months— and still Bancroft persisted in refusing to 
take the oath of allegiance. He was suspended from 
office, but remained at Lambeth, maintaining the same 
attendance and splendor of establishment. Twelve 
months after his deprivation he was still at Lambeth 
and did not leave it until the 3d of August, 1791, and 
then under the pressure of a civil officer with a writ 
of ejectment! 

This man either was or he was not a "successor of 
the apostles." If he was a true bishop, and the same 
power was transmitted to him that belonged to our 
Saviour— that is to say, sovereign power in the Church 
—what was the power that deposed him from office? 
What is the status of the authority that can expell the 
sovereign of the kingdom of Christ from his domin- 
ions? His offense was a political one, but it was pun- 
ished by banishment from his see and deprivation of 
all ecclesiastical functions. This was the decree of 
the government. But Sancroft did not take this view 
of he matter. "He was induced to think and speak 
of the prelates and clergy who refused the new oath, 
and were in consequence ejected, as. forming the true 
Church of England, while he looked upon the rest 
who remained in possession of their benefices, or were 
appointed to those vacated by the Non-jurors, as for*. 

S~tr d rebelli ° US CWh " 

the influence of the same feelings he was also induced 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



93 



to take steps which no friend to his memory can jus- 
tify or approve, for laying the foundation of a perma- 
nent schism in the Church of England."* That this 
was a true schism, having every mark of that species 
of division which is productive of countless evils to 
the cause of Christ, is so evident that there can be no 
room for controversy. Of uncharitableness, censori- 
ousness, and bitterness, Dr. Sancroft became a notori- 
ous example. "Throughout his whole retirement," 
says his biographer, "particularly during his last 
sickness, he never permitted clergymen who had taken 
the oaths to perform the offices of religion about him, 
and never received the communion with them. It ap- 
pears that reports had been spread in London, that 
daring his last illness he had changed his practice, 
and received the communion from the hands of a ju- 
ror." In order to contradict this report, he dictated 
the following letter to one of his friends, stating what 
his practice was: 

"November 15, 1693. 

" My lord is sensible of how great concernment it is, 
who ministers to him in holy things. He never re- 
ceiveth the sacrament, but with those who come not at 
the parish and are Non-jurors. He never admits any 
of the irregular clergy to be at the holy offices. As 
for the rest, if they come when he goes to prayers, he 
excludes them not. This has been his course. This 
my lord dictated to me from his own mouth. You see 
how ready his apprehension and judgment are." 

"The writer who records this," says the biographer, 
"adds that he never altered his practice afterward, 
and that he took espec ial care that no juror should 
*' Life of Sancroft, vol. ii., p. 29. 



94 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



perforin over hira the burial-service, and even appoint- 
ed by name the person whom he desired to officiate." * 

Here, then, we have a true and a false Church of 
England. The deposed Archbishop of Canterbury 
proceeds to make a formal consignment of his powers 
to Dr. Lloyd, the deprived Bishop of Norwich. What 
had Dr. Sancroft to consign? He went further, how- 
ever. "A second measure which he took, or at least 
in which he concurred, still less justifiable, was the 
providing for a regular succession of non-juring prel- 
ates and ministers." f King James— now the pre- 
tender, not the true sovereign— appointed Dr. Hi ekes 
and Mr. Wagstaff to be ordained bishops by the Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Norwich, but 
Dr. Sancroft died before their consecration. But the 
ceremony was performed, and a line of the " apostol- 
ical succession" was kept up until 1779, when Dr. 
Gordon, the last of the English non-juring bishops, 
died. " It is supposed that at the end of the last cent- 
ury there was not a single non-juring congregation 
or minister remaining." ^ 

With the motives of Dr. Sancroft and his friends 
we have no concern. Our interest in the matter is 
purely that of a great question in Church history. 
Dr. Sancroft was either in the right or he was in the 
wrong. If he acted rightly, the apostolical succes- 
sion has been lost in England, for it is admitted that 
the Non-jurors have died out of the land. If he acted 
wrongfully, then a civil magistrate has the right to 
invade the Church of Christ, to depose its officers, and 
to banish from the kingdom of grace the agents to 
whom t he Lord Jesus has committed the government 
* Life of Sancroft, vol. it, p. 62. f Ibid., p. 32. jlbid., p. 35. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers, 



95 



of his people. If Dr. Sancroft was constituted Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury by the will and in obedience to the 
authority of Christ, the Supreme Head of the Church, 
his deposition was an act of rebellion against the Lord 
of the kingdom, and therefore void. If he was still 
the true archbishop, because unlawfully deprived, Dr. 
Tillotson and his successors have been spurious bish- 
ops, having no authority from Christ, and no legal au- 
thority whatever. It follows, in this view of the case, 
that all the powers of ordination have ceased to exist 
for nearly two hundred years in the Church of En- 
gland. The apostolical succession is lost, irrecovera- 
bly lost. Taking either horn of the dilemma, the 
High-churchman is brought face to face with certain 
calamity and defeat. If Sancroft and his friends were 
in the line of the " apostolical succession " before his 
deposition, then he carried it with him when he re- 
tired from Lambeth palace, and transmitted it to his 
followers. If Dr. Sancroft was not in the "apostol- 
ical succession" after his deposition, then the mere 
mandate of a king can make or mar the sovereign au- 
thority in the Church of Christ, and an act of political 
allegiance determines the character of the officers in 
the kingdom of God. Thus confusion and disorder, 
doubt and schism, and many deplorable evils, enter 
and disturb the peace of Jerusalem, until the equivo- 
cal rhymes describe the attitude of Churchmen: 

God bless the King, our Faith's Defender; 
Blessing's no harm—God bless the Pretender; 
But who's the Pretender, and who's the King? 
God bless my soul! that's quite another thing!* 



*Life of Bishop Bathurst, vol. i., p. 17, 



Chapter f I. 

Chevalier Bunsen— Symbol of Unity— Controversy not an Unmixed 
E v il_Growth by Conflict— Charity the Bond of Union— High- 
church Party Illiberal— Non-jurors of Scotland— Bishop Sand- 
ford— King William and the Scotch Bishops— Episcopal Church 
of Scotland destroyed by the Scotch Parliament, not by King Will- 
iam—Statements to the contrary disproved— Macphersoh's Tes- 
timony—The Bestoration brings Episcopacy back to Scotland- 
People opposed— Terrible Persecution— Murder of Sharp— James 
II dethroned— William III. rejected by the Scotch Episcopalians 
-Intrigues resulting in Ruin to the Hopes of the J acobites-Bur- 
net's Testimony-Striving to deceive the King-Failure and Re- 
peal— Presbyterians Succeed— Non-jurors form a Secret and Out- 
lawed Party— Final Suppression under Queen Anne— The Amer- 
ican Candidate. 

IT is very intelligible," says Chevalier Bunsen, 
"that the selfish principle of nature should be es- 
pecially active in the field of religion. Every society 
within the State, every corporation, bears within it the 
germ of a temptation to concentrated selfishness, by 
regarding the society as an end in itself, instead of a 
means. But this danger is particularly great in mat- 
ters of religion. 

"Keligion is the highest divine symbol of unity, 
whether in the household, the tribe, the nation, or the 
State. It is our God whom we defend or avenge when 
we are filled with zeal against those of an opposite 
faith. But to appropriate what belongs to God is the 
very essence of all selfishness, the true fall of man, who 
would fain be the master of goodness and truth, not their 
voluntary servant. This danger grows with the deepen- 
(96) 



% 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



97 



ing consciousness of national unity, and the civilization 
which attends this consciousness. The more religion 
is absorbed into the mind, and is conceived as essen- 
tially bound up with the moral law of the universe 
and of conscience, the more will the idea of purity and 
godliness become attached to our faith, and that of 
impurity and ungodliness to the faith of our oppo- 
nents. They are our enemies because they are de- 
spisers of God — that is, despisers of our God. Why 
else should they not worship him with us? Thus the 
natural man calls his neighbors who speak another 
language uykuxraotj in contrast to pipo-sq avOpoj-ut; he 
scornfully calls them barbarians, in contrast to the in- 
telligent human being." * 

While we admit that these words of the German 
philanthropist contain a great truth, they must be 
qualified by another and equally important view of 
the subject. The tendency which leads to selfishness 
promotes activity, and the true interpretation of the 
Holy Scriptures must ever lay the greatest stress up- 
on that charity which St. Paul tells us is always and 
everywhere essential to the Christian life. The love 
of God necessitates the love of our fellow-men, and 
the grace of God is always a safeguard against bigot- 
ry and intolerance. Zeal tempered by love is always 
a good thing, and the utmost diligence and energy in 
the propagation of our opinions may be compatible 
with a spirit of loving generosity which refuses to 
allow differences of opinion to operate as barriers 
against Christian fellowship. For this reason, be- 
cause it is essentially exclusive and illiberal, the spirit 
of the High-church party has ever been a disturbing 
*Bunsen's Signs of the Times, p. 1GG. 

7 



98 



The Hi(jh-cJuirchnan Disarmed: 



influence in the Christian commonwealth. It is not 
content to follow the dictates of personal conscience, 
but seeks to compel the consciences of others. In- 
deed, the interest manifested in behalf of men exists 
only so long as they are objects of strife or of con- 
quest. When they have become proselytes, and are 
under the same yoke, the zeal which won them oyer is 
no longer displayed toward them. Activity is agita- 
tion; Christian life is the bending or the breaking of 
the will and judgment of men into conformity, and it 
is well if there exists a desire for more than external 
conformity. 

In advocacy of these tenets of the High-church 
party, no restraints of history or of fact are sufficient to 
prevent very zealous men from distorting and misrep- 
resenting those who are opposed to them. A conspicu- 
ous illustration of this remark is seen in the career of 
the party known in British history as the Episcopal 
Non-jurors of Scotland. If there has been no adequate 
reason for the existence of a Non- juror Church in En- 
gland, there can be no adequate reason for the exist- 
ence of a Non-juror party in Scotland. The extent to 
which the truth of history is set at naught by those 
who had every opportunity to know the real state of 
things is surprising and humiliating. Many exam- 
ples might be given, but two or three will suffice. 

"The Episcopal Church of Scotland," says the son 
and biographer of Bishop Sandford, " has an indis- 
putable claim to all that respect to which suffering for 
conscience' sake can entitle a community. It is well 
known how, from the enjoyment of ascendency proud- 
ly maintained, and of authority often abused, she was 
not only deprived of political existence, but degraded 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



99 



to the condition of an outlawed sect. The change in 
her condition was not less sudden than complete. A 
single interview with royalty, it would appear, decided 
her fate." * This is the flippant style in which a seri- 
ous writer describes an event of such momentous con- 
sequence to the liberties of his country. The "single 
interview with royalty" is given in a note. King 
William asked Kose, then Bishop of Edinburgh, to 
use his influence in behalf of the new government 
in Scotland. The Bishop was embarrassed, but an- 
swered that he would serve the King as far as law, 
reason, and conscience would allow him. The King 
turned away, and said no more to the Scotchman; and 
by this incident we are to believe the fate of the 
Scotch Episcopal Church was determined. Neverthe- 
less, without seeming to be aware that he was contra- 
dicting himself, in the next paragraph he says: "She 
might indeed still have enjoyed immunity, on condi- 
tion of abjuring her former allegiance, but preferring 
to 'stand by it in the face of all dangers and to the 
greatest losses,' she withdrew from legal protection, 
and laid herself open to the attacks of those whom re- 
cent injuries had inflamed." f In other and simpler 
words, she refused to take the oath of allegiance to King 
William, and thereby placed herself in hostility to 
the government of the country. For this act of polit- 
ical contumacy the Legislature of Scotland suppressed 
the Episcopal Church. The same power that estab- 
lished, disestablished it, and there was an end to the 
Scotch Episcopal Church. 

In the "History of the Church in Scotland," a 
work written by a Non-juror, it is affirmed that 



*Life of Bishop Sandford, vol. i., p. 34. f Ibid., p. 85. 



100 The High-ehurehman Disarmed: 



"at the era of the Eevolution (of 1688) the counte- 
nance of the State was withdrawn because the bish- 
ops could not, without being allowed time for due re- 
flection, consent to transfer their allegiance from 
one sovereign to another.""* Episcopacy was over- 
thrown, and Presbyterianism established, says the 
same writer "contrary to the wishes of the masses of 
the people." f The most impartial historian of those 
times is, perhaps, James Macpherson. If he has a tend- 
ency toward either party, it is toward that of James II. 
He tells us in the preface to his "History of Great 
Britain" that the papers of the family of Brunswick- 
Luneburg, and those of the house of Stuart, were 
placed in his hands. "The new light thrown upon 
public transactions, the discoveries made in the secret 
views of parties, the certainty established with regard 
to the real characters of particular persons, and the 
undeviating justice rendered to all, will, the author 
hopes, atone for his defects as a writer." These words 
were printed more than a hundred years ago, and time 
has not modified essentially the statements of this 
historian. Others have followed in his path, and have 
confirmed the story recorded in his pages. 

Immediately after the Bestoration— in 1660 — the 
Presbyterian Church of Scotland was overthrown. 
The tidal-wave of popular opinion that brought Charles 
II. back to the throne of his fathers gave no time for 
reflection, and no means for resistance to the schemes 
of those who sought to take advantage of the King's 
popularity. Episcopacy was established in Scotland 
in a similar way to its introduction in the time of 

* Quoted in Bailey's Duties of the Christian Ministry, p. 188. 
f Ibid., p. 186. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 101 



James I. The Presbyterian system was covered with 
ignominy in the defeat of the Covenant and its adher- 
ents. A subservient Legislature voted any measure 
into law whenever the King required it at their hands. 
But the people of Scotland were not Episcopalians. 
They loved the doctrines, the discipline, and the tra- 
ditions of John Knox and his hardy, zealous, spirit- 
ual followers. In vain did the Scotch Episcopalians 
labor to establish uniformity. With brutality unpar- 
alleled—except, perhaps, in the worst days of the Span- 
ish Inquisition— the clergy and the law-makers com- 
bined to root out the Presbyterian "heresy." Heavy 
fines were imposed upon persons who met in "con- 
venticles" for religious purposes, and field-preachers 
were punished with death. The right to govern the 
Church was declared inherent in the Crown— a princi- 
ple which was in a few years to prove destructive to 
Episcopacy in Scotland. For nearly thirty years the 
bloody work of forcing the Scotch to "conformity" 
proceeded. The red-handed Sharp, Archbishop of 
St. Andrews, was murdered by the incensed populace— 
an act of vengeance that may not be excused, and yet 
can scarcely be condemned when we consider his 
blood-thirsty character and savage conduct. Perjury, 
treachery, and murder were laid at his door, and not 
without proof of his guilt in all particulars. But his 
assassination brought on an Iliad of woes to the per- 
secuted Scotch. Fire and flame, the shriek of the 
dying and the psalm of praise, the voice of the field- 
preacher and the click of the musket of grenadiers 
who opened fire upon masses of innocent men, women, 
and children— all these were mingled together on the 
hill-sides and in the plains of Scotland. 



102 



The HigJi-churohman Dlsanned: 



It is not easy to determine the number of lives sac- 
rificed in this terrible strife of nearly thirty years' 
duration. In seven years of this period the number 
exceeded several thousand, and a large volume * is de- 
voted to their memory by their compatriots. There 
can be no reply to testimony which gives the facts, the 
names, the dates, with as much exactitude and care as 
if the proceedings were taken as formally as the 
records of a court-room. This is the "ascend- 
ency proudly maintained," and the "authority often 
abused." Mild terms, indeed, to describe the oppres- 
sion of a hireling soldiery and the vindictive cruelty 
of monsters in human shape! "Ruinous fines were 
appointed to be levied on those who met to worship in 
houses," says Macpherson, " but field-preachers and 
their hearers were to be punished with death. Laws 
that are too severe defeat their own purpose. The fa- 
natics were outrageous, and became, through persecu- 
tion, more enamored of their own tenets." f "The 
High-church party, possessed of the power of the 
government, turned its whole force upon wretched fa- 
natics, whose desperate zeal ought to be the subject of 
pity more than the object of punishment. Rapacity 
and blind revenge were seen on one side, insolence 
and madness on the other. A scene of pitiful misery 
prevailed; oppression without profit, and an obstinate 
opposition for no worthy cause; a feeble government, 
who deemed violence authority; an ignorant populace, 
without a single idea of political freedom, struck with 
madness by enthusiastic opinions in religion." % 

*A Cloud of Witnesses of those who Suffered for the Truth in 
Scotland, between the years 1681 and 1GSS. t History of Great 
Britain, vol. i. 3 p. 159. i Ibid., p. 378. 



A Defense of Oar Methodist Fathers. 103 



This was the state of affairs in Scotland when the 
bigotry and fanaticism of James II. produced the Bev- 
olution of 1688. A great majority of the Scotch peo- 
ple were enemies to Episcopacy/" As soon as Will- 
iam III. had been acknowledged the lawful King of 
Great Britain by the English Parliament, the Scotch 
convention was called, and two letters—one from 
James II. and the other from William III.— were laid 
before the representatives of the people. After hear- 
ing both of the royal claimants, the convention de- 
clared that James had abdicated the throne, and that 
William III. was the rightful King of Great Britain. 
The party of James— called the Jacobites— was the 
High-church party, which was the whole body of 
Episcopalians in Scotland. The standard of rebell- 
ion was raised, and the partisans of James were de- 
feated on the field of battle. "During the military 
operations in the north of Scotland, the Parliament 
sat in continual ferment at Edinburgh. A violent op- 
position rose upon various grounds. The passions of 
the discontented were inflamed by men who had 
been disappointed in their views of ambition. A 
majority appeared against the Crown. They passed 
an act for the abolition of prelacy." f This act of 
disestablishment was not the act of the King, but of 
a Scotch Parliament whose majority was opposed to 
the administration of King William. They fought 
his measures step by step, until the King authorized 
his representative, the commissioner, to agree to any 
law, with regard to the government of the Church, 
which might seem best to the majority. " The hopes 
of the Jacobites were clestroyedJ}y_this_jConcessjom 
* Historv of Great Britain, vol. i., p. 435. f Ibid., p. 556. 



104 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



The King's supremacy over the Church was rescinded 
by an act which received the royal assent on the 26th 
of April, 1690. The Presbyterians demanded noth- 
ing which the commissioner was not empowered to 
grant." * "The Jacobite members, yielding in the 
meantime to their own fears, left the commissioner 
with a clear majority in Parliament. He gave the 
royal assent to a bill establishing Presbytery as the 
national Church of Scotland." Thus, in 1690, more 
than eighteen months after William III. came to the 
throne, the Episcopal Church of Scotland was over- 
thrown. It was not the act of the King, but of the 
Scotch Parliament. King William had exercised 
much patience, and had treated his Scotch subjects of 
the Episcopal party with kindness from the beginning. 
"The bishops, and those who adhered to them," says 
Burnet, "having left the convention, the Presbyteri- 
ans had a majority of voices to carry every thing as 
they pleased, how unreasonable soever. And upon 
this, the abolishing Episcopacy in Scotland was made 
a necessary article of the new settlement." The King, 
in answer to inquiries from Scotland, assured the 
Episcopalians that "he would do all he could to pre- 
serve them, granting a full toleration to the Presbyte- 
rians; but this was in case they concurred in the new 
settlement of the kingdom. For if they opposed that, 
and if by a great majority in Parliament resolutions 
should be taken against them, the King could not 
make a war for them."f But the infatuated bishops, 
believing that a "speedy revolution would be brought 
about in favor of King James, resolved to adhere 

* History of Great Britain, vol. i., p. 5S6. f Burnet's History of 
His Own Time, vol. iii., p. 31. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 105 



firmly to his interests; so they declaring in a body 
with so much zeal, in opposition to the new settlement, 
it was not possible for the King to preserve that gov- 
ernment there; all those who expressed their zeal for 
him being equally zealous against that order." * This 
is the language of the Bishop of Salisbury— a man 
whose, ecclesiastical station, as well as his principles, 
qualified him for an impartial judgment, He corre- 
sponded with the Scotch bishops, and assured them 
that the existence of their Church depended upon 
their acquiescence in the will of the people as ex- 
pressed in the Revolution of 1688. They resisted the 
popular will, and fell victims to their own insensate 
zeal for a prince who was an uncompromising enemy 
to the Protestant religion. 

"The proceedings in Scotland cast a great load on 
the King," continues Burnet. "He could not hinder 
the change of the government of thc.t Church without 
putting all his affairs in great disorder. The Episcopal 
party went almost universally into King J ames's inter- 
ests; so that the Presbyterians were the only party that 
the King had in that kingdom. The King did indeed 
assure us, and myself in particular, that he would re- 
strain and moderate the violence of the Presbyte- 
rians." f The folly of the infatuated .men who were 
hazarding their Church and their religious liberty for 
the vain hope of recalling a popish King who had fled 
from his country, seems to be almost incredible. But 
every step of the English Government which promised 
relief or assistance to the Episcopalians was met by 
some wretched blunder on their part, or some act of po- 
litical disobedience which rendered the most benevo- 



* Burnet's History of His Own Time, vol. iii., p. 31. f Ibid., p. 39. 



106 



The High-ciiarcliinan Disarmed: 



lent purposes impracticable. The methods employed 
by men wiio were called bishops of the Church were 
suited to only the basest o£ politicians. £ 'The Jaco- 
bites persuaded all their party to go to the Parliament., 
and to take the oaths; for many of the nobility stood 
off and would not own the King, nor swear to him. 
Great pains were taken by Patterson, one of their 
archbishops, to persuade them to take the oaths, but 
on design to break them; for he thought by that means 
they could have a majority in Parliament, though 
some of the laity were too honest to agree to such ad- 
vices. But with all these wicked arts they were not 
able to carry a majority." * This would seem to be 
the extremity of wickedness and folly, but there are 
other facts which reveal a lower degree of degrada- 
tion. Pretending to be reconciled to the principles 
of the Revolution, "they undertook to the King that 
if the Episcopal clergy could be assured of his pro- 
tection, they would all acknowledge and serve him. 
They did not desire that the King should make any 
step toward the changing the government that was 
settled there; they only desired that Episcopal minis- 
ters might continue to serve in those places that liked 
them best, and that no man should be brought into 
trouble for his opinion as to the government of the 
Church; and that such Episcopal men as were willing 
to mix with the Presbyterians in their judicatories 
should be admitted without any severe imposition in 
point of opinion. This looked so fair, and agreed so 
well with the King's own sense of things, that he very 
easily hearkened to it; and I did believe that it was 
sincerely meant, so I promoted it with great zeal; 
* Burnet's History of His Own Time, vol. iii., p. 85. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers, 



1C7 



though we afterward came to see that all this was an 
artifice of the Jacobites to engage the King to disgust 
the Presbyterians, and by losing them, or at least ren- 
dering them remiss in his service, they reckoned they 
would soon be masters of that kingdom."* This ex- 
traordinary duplicity excelled the arts of King James 
himself, for on receiving a statement from a messen- 
ger that their taking the oaths was done only to serve 
his cause, James replied that he could not consent 
to an unlawful act, but if any should take the oaths 
in order to serve him, it should not be remem- 
bered against them. In other words, if they saw 
proper to perjure themselves in order to aid him, 
while he would not advise them to do it, he would not 
punish them for the perjury. 

To pursue the history of the non-juring party in 
Scotland for fifty years is to repeat over and again the 
story of treasonable plots and efforts at rebellion, 
meditated or attempted. Never in the history of En- 
glish politics, was there a record more fruitful in the 
despicable arts of the demagogue, and in pertinacious 
movements whose only result would have been the 
overthrow of religious and civil liberty in Great Brit- 
ain. Queen Anne was a Stuart, and would have favored 
the Scotch Episcopal party if their conduct had ren- 
dered any royal favor compatible with the safety of 
the kingdom. So far from this being the case it was 
necessary, in 17G3, to confirm the Presbyterian form 
of government. By their opposition to the govern- 
ment the Episcopal party compelled the royal com- 
missioner to yield to the solicitations of the Presby- 
terians. "By this all the hopes of the Episcopal 
* Burnet's History of Ills Own Time, vol, iii., p. 101. 



108 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



party were lost; and every thing in the Church did 
not only continue in the same state in which it was 
during the former reign, but the Presbyterians got a 
new law in their favor which gave them as firm a set- 
tlement and as full a security as law could give. For 
an act passed, not only confirming the claim of rights 
upon which the crown had been offered to the late 
King, one of its articles being against prelacy, and for 
a parity in the Church; but it was declared high trea- 
son to endeavor any alteration of it. It had often 
been proposed to the late King to pass this into an 
act, but he would never consent to it. He said he had 
taken the crown on the terms in that claim, and that 
therefore he would never make a breach on any part 
of it; but he could not bind his successors by making 
it a perpetual law. Thus a ministry that carried all 
matters relating to the Church to so great a height, 
yet with other views, gave a fatal stroke to the Epis- 
copal interest in Scotland, to which the late King 
would never give way." * 

We have in this extract one of those instances 
of special retribution which sometimes overtakes the 
schemes of placemen and politicians. In order to ef- 
fect the restoration of an unworthy Stuart King, the 
Episcopalians forfeited the favor of the people and 
' the emoluments of the government of Scotland, and 
from the hands of a monarch belonging to the Stuart 
family the hope of the Episcopal party received its 
death-blow. Hereafter, until successful treason be- 
comes triumphant revolution, the Church establish- 
ment of Scotland must remain Presbyterian in its 
form. The Act of Union, adopted i n 1706, disc ontin- 
* Burnet's History, vol. iv., p. 21. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 109 



ued the Scotch Parliament, transferring all of its pow- 
ers to the English Legislature. Of this Act of Union, 
Bishop Burnet says: "The advantages that were of- 
fered to Scotland, in the whole frame of it, were so 
great and so visible that nothing but the considera- 
tion of the safety that was to be procured by it to 
England could have brought the English to agree to 
a project that in every branch of it was much more 
favorable to the Scotch nation."* 

But the extinction of the Episcopal Church of Scot- 
land did not interfere with those persons who desired 
to worship God according to the forms of ths liturgy 
of the Church of England. In 1712, a special act of 
Parliament removed all doubts upon this point. "A 
toleration was proposed for the Episcopal clergy," 
says Burnet, "who would use the liturgy of the 
Church of England. This seemed so reasonable that 
no opposition was made to it." f The only condition 
that was attached to this act of toleration was that the 
clergyman should take the oath of abjuration; in other 
words, the oath of allegiance to the reigning sover- 
eign. If any man can see the appearance of perse- 
cution in a law that requires him to keep faith with 
the government that protects him, he must have a 
strange perversity of moral vision. To enjoy the ben- 
efits of a system of government, and to be protected 
in every respect, while trying to bring about the de- 
struction of that government, can never be claimed as 
a right by any man or society of men. 

We have, then, a distinct view of this "persecuted 
Church." "There is not to be found in any Protest- 
ant nation," says one of these non-juring clergymen, 
* Burnet's History, vol. iv., p. 167. f Ibid., p. 356. 



110 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



u an example of penal laws at once so oppressive and 
insidious as those of which the history has now been 
described." * But in what particulars were these laws 
oppressive? There was a son of James II., known as 
the Pretender to the throne of Great Britain. This 
prince had been acknowledged by Trance as the true 
King of England. Funds were supplied to him, and 
many persons among the discontented politicians of 
England resorted to his residence abroad, forming 
plans for his return to England. Scotland presented 
an open gate-way for the entrance of an invading army 
that might be sent from France or Spain. An im- 
mense army and navy would be needed to protect En- 
gland from invasion, if in Scotland a party hostile to 
the Protestant succession should obtain a foothold. 
The Scotch Episcopalians were not "persecuted" in 
any proper sense. It is folly to say that the govern- 
ment of England, with an Episcopal Church estab- 
lished, could be opposed to an Episcopal Church in 
Scotland. It was a political, and not a religious, ques- 
tion. The only religious feature involved was that of 
maintaining the Protestant religion, in preference to 
the Pioman Catholic. If the Scotch Episcopalians 
preferred popery to Lutheranism, they have no claim 
upon Protestants for sympathy in their tribulations. 

But the fact is that they provoked the English Gov- 
ernment to severity by their frequent attempts at re- 
bellion. In 1715, and again in 1715, the Pretender 
landed in Scotland, and gathered an army for the in- 
vasion of England. The Scotch Episcopalians joined 
their fortunes with his, and shared the fate of crimi- 
nals who fail in enterprises which involve the life of 



-Duties of the Ministry, \\ 193. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. Ill 



a monarch, a dynasty, or a nation. "Illegal Episco- 
pal meeting-houses " were those of the Jacobites, and 
of Jacobites alone. Episcopal churches using the En- 
glish liturgy were as accessible to the Scotchman in 
Scotland as Presbyterian churches were to the Scotch- 
man in London. If these Jacobite Episcopalians 
were not always credited for sincerity in taking the 
oath of allegiance to the house of Hanover, it is due 
to the duplicity of one of their archbishops, who ad- 
vised his people to perjure themselves in order to 
carry their point. Therefore, notwithstanding the 
fact that some of these " meeting-houses " were reg- 
istered, and thus legalized, after "the rising of 1745," 
a subsequent Act of Parliament amended the former 
statute, and required "that no letters of orders not 
granted by some bishop of the Church of England or 
Ireland should, after the 22d of September, be suffi- 
cient to qualify any pastor or minister of any Episco- 
pal meeting in Scotland, whether the same had been 
registered before or since the 1st of September, 1746; 
and that every such registration, whether made before 
or since, should be null and void." "This act, it is 
manifest," says Dr. Russell, the Non-juror, "ivas di- 
rectly leveled against the religion of Scottish Episco- 
palians, for it precluded them from the privilege of 
political repentance."* It was not leveled at the re- 
ligion, but at the politics, of the Non- jurors, and seems 
to have been a very wise, prudent measure. Any En- 
glish bishop would authorize an Episcopal clergyman 
to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments to 
Episcopalians in Scotland, provided the minister was 
not. an avowed enemy of the government under which 
* Duties of the Ministry, p. 192. 



112 The High-churchman Disarmed: 

he lived. What- more could any one ask? Episcopa- 
cy, as a ruling Church power, was overthrown in 
Scotland, and could never rise again; but Episcopacy, 
as one of the methods of gathering the people of the 
Lord into the fold of Christ, was as free to act and 
prosper in Scotland as it was in England. 

" From the reign of Queen Anne to the close of the 
last century," says the biographer of Bishop Sand- 
ford, "the penalties were in force, and though the 
lenity of a benevolent monarch restrained their exe- 
cution, the Episcopalians of Scotland were still an op- 
pressed* remnant, who owed their safety to privacy 
and oblivion. They were not, indeed, compelled to 
seek refuge in caves or deserts, but they met in pri- 
vate rooms and concealed closes for congregational 
worship, and avoided all display of outward ceremo- 
nial. Yet they maintained a separate communion, and 
preserved inviolate Episcopal succession; they en- 
dured persecution and survived neglect, and perse- 
vered in their hopeless attachment to the last. Their 
allegiance expired only with its object. On the de- 
mise of the heir of the house of Stuart, in 1788, their 
political scruples were removed. They acknowledged 
the right, as they had felt the power, of the house of 
Brunswick; they hastened, with a free conscience, to 
present their homage, and, with a sincerity which none 
could question, to promise an attachment as devoted 
to the reigning family as they had shown to the an- 
cient line." - 

This writer confesses that allegiance to the house 
of Stuart was the only principle which distinguished 
the Scotch Episcopalians as a party. When the 

.* Memoirs of Bishop Sandford, vol. i., p. 36. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 113 

last member of the Stuart family died, they hast- 
ened to present their homage to George III. ! "After, 
therefore, a dutiful address to the King on his recov- 
ery in 1789, three of the bishops repaired to the En- 
glish metropolis, to seek redress from the great coun- 
cil of the nation. Yery different was the condition of 
these lowly men from that of the last Scottish bishop 
who had been admitted to White Hall. Unknown al- 
most by name to the great officers of state, and equal- 
ly so to. many of their brother prelates — strangers alike 
to pomp and etiquette — they met not with success 
equal either to the merit of their cause, or to their 
own expectations." 

Thus does the biographer lament the impoverished 
condition of a proud and once persecuting Church. 
A great difference there was, indeed, between the 
visit of these three Non-jurors to Whitehall and 
that of the bishop whom this writer declares decid- 
ed the fate of Scotch Episcopacy. Whatever of 
truth there may be in the alleged interview between 
King William and the Bishop of Edinburgh, it can- 
not be questioned that these were sad pilgrims from 
Scotland, in search of relief from penalties which 
were no longer operative, because the Pretender was 
no longer in existence. " The prejudices of a great 
man, better versed in the temporal than in the spirit- 
al rights of the Church, was the effectual hinderance 
to their suit. A slight informality committed by the 
bishops; a want of information which the Lord 
Chancellor, Thurlow, did not care to obtain; a 
weight of business more important than the relief 
of a few oppressed individuals, induced him first to 
move for the postponement of the bill, and after- 
8 



in 



The Higli'-chiirefanan Disarmed: 



ward to continue his opposition to it for two succes- 
sive sessions." * 

In plainer terms, Lord Thurlow denied that there 
was such a thing in being as the Scotch Episcopal 
Church. Planting himself upon the historical fact 
that the institution once bearing that name had been 
destroyed by Act of Parliament in the year 1690, he 
could not be expected to recognize the three Scotchmen 
who called themselves "bishops" of a Church that 
had been dead a hundred years. As a lawyer, and an 
English chancellor, he could know nothing of an al- 
leged succession of men whose sole rdison d ' etre was 
not a spiritual one, but consisted of political allegiance 
to a family that had been declared base and perni- 
cious enemies to the kingdom of Great Britain. There 
were not a few of the friends of the defeated bishops 
who reproached them for their failure; but by dint of 
an association and a committee, a bill was carried 
through Parliament in the year 1792, which relieved 
the Non- jurors from the penalties of the law. Bat 
the liberated remnant, which hastened with the "free 
conscience to present their homage," "whose sinceri- 
ty none could question," continued, with a perversity 
which seems inexplicable, to refuse to take the oath 
of allegiance or to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Arti- 
cles of the Church of England. With a supreme in- 
difference to consistency, which appears to be consti- 
tutional in this writer, in one place he declares it to be 
the duty of an Episcopalian to " render obedience to 
authority in Church and State;" yet he proceeds, upon 
the next page, to declare that the Non-jurors, not- 
withstanding the lenity of the government, refused to 
-•Life of Sandford, vol. i., p. 37. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 115 



perform that duty, at least with respect to the State. 
"And the clergy too," he says, "were virtually re- 
lieved; for though still liable to a mitigated penalty, 
unless taking the oaths of allegiance and abjuration, 
and subscribing the Thirty-nine Articles of the En- 
glish Church, and though none of them immediately eon- 
formed to either condition, no countenance was given to 
informers, and the Episcopalian minister might safe- 
ly confide in the benevolence of the public and in the 
mild execution of the laws. The oath of abjuration, 
as far as it was retrospective, the existing bishops and 
presbyters of the old Episcopal Church of Scotland, 
could not indeed conscientiously take; and though 
concurring in the doctrines of the English Church, as 
expressed in her Articles, and adopting her ritual— 
with one exception— they did not see the expediency 
of subscribing her valuable confessional, or the possi- 
bility of separating the conditions required by the 
act."* 

We have traced this outline of the history of a re- 
markable schism which was not more fortunate than 
that which took its rise concurrently in England. 
With the Pretender's death passed away the reason 
for the existence of a non-juring party. There were 
a few Episcopal congregations that were served by 
pastors who had claimed communion with the Church 
of England. The Scotch Non-jurors had no Confes- 
sion of Faith, and hence, when the Pretender died, 
they had no bond of union among themselves except 
the memory of political antagonism to a dynasty that 
had triumphed over civil and ecclesiastical opposition. 
"As the Episcopa l Church of Scotland had not given 
*Life of Sandford, vol. i., p. 42. 



The High-ehurchman Disarmed: 



the pledge demanded of her, and had not adopted 
the confessional of the Church of England, it could 
scarcely be expected that her sons should unite with 
a communion of the orthodoxy of which they might 
indeed be assured, but which could not refer to a per- 
manent standard."'- A synod was held in 1803, at 
which the Thirty-nine Articles were adopted, and per- 
mission was granted for the use of the English litur- 
gy—the Scotch party having used the communion 
service of Edward VI. Thus, in 1803, there was a 
reorganization which placed Episcopacy in Scotland 
upon a firm foundation as a Church of Christ. For 
a hundred years without articles of religion and with- 
out a liturgy, holding its meetings in secret, and sub- 
jecting its ministers to the heavy penalties of the law, 
the political party known as the Non- jurors of Scot- 
land preserved their existence as a separate faction; 
and in 1784, by the act of three men who claimed to 
be bishops of a Church suppressed and destroyed by 
law, the apostolical succession of the house of Stuart 
was conveyed to Dr. Seabury, an enterprising citizen 
of Connecticut. In a private house, by men unknown 
to the civil authorities, except as violators of the laws, 
in the face of the statute of praemunire, three clergy- 
men of Scotland undertook to do what the Archbishop 
of Canterbury had refused to do. Standing upon the 
platform of relentless opposition to the Kevolution 
of 1688, which gave civil and religious liberty to Great 
Britain, these representatives of a moribund political 
association volunteer to transmit episcopal authority 
in the Church of Christ to a citizen of a republic just 
emancipated from political bondage! 



*Life of Sandford, vol. L, p. 44. 



Ghapfeep TO. 

M. Gukot— High-church Theories— Church and State— Samuel 
Seabury— Secretary of a Petitioning Convention— Tory Princi- 
ples—Outspoken Loyalty to King George— Offensive Partisan- 
ship—A Secret Convention of Ten Tory Clergymen— Candidates 
for the Episcopacy, Learning and Seabury— The Latter Consents 
to Apply to England for Orders— Independence Produces Con- 
sternation in Episcopal Circles in New York — Patriotism of Dr. 
White— Chaplain to Congress — A Well-kept Secret— Letter to 
White— Seabury Arrives in London— Vain Efforts— Working a 
Legislature — Seabury not the Choice of the Church — Twelve 
Months of Useless Effort— The Secret Movement Discovered by 
Dr. White— A Slight Error in the "Memoirs of the Church"— 
Dr. Berkeley— Delay— Disgust— Goes to Edinburgh— Seabury Or- 
dained in a Private House— Statute of Praemunire— Protest from 
America — Dr. Chandler — Errors Corrected. 

NOTHING tortures history more than logic," 
says M. Guizot, Prime-minister of France. 
"No sooner does the human mind seize upon an idea 
than it draws from it all its possible consequences; 
makes it produce in imagination all that it would in 
reality be capable of producing, and then figures it 
down in history with all the extravagant additions 
which itself has conjured up. This, however, is noth- 
ing like the truth. Events are not so prompt in their 
consequences as the human mind in its deductions." * 
These remarks are applicable to all history, but to 
none do they apply with so much force as to the his- 
torical proofs alleged in behalf of High-church theo- 
ries. A theory is invented which makes the Church 
* History of Civilization, vol. i., p. 117. 

(117) 



118 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



of Christ a machine, arranged and put in motion in 
the apostolic age, and to be kept in exercise accord- 
ing to certain absolute, inflexible principles. Our 
Lord established a Church. In that Church he 
placed three orders of ministers, and for each order 
a definite method of investiture in authority. Con- 
forming to these principles in every particular, allow- 
ing for no lapse, mistake, neglect, or perversion of the 
original mode of instituting these orders of the minis- 
try, the Church has descended to our day, having the 
three orders essential to its constitution and ministe- 
rial authority transmitted through them from the 
apostles to our own times. 

The author of the " Life of Bishop Sandford " tells us 
that Bishop Horsley, "as a Churchman, considered a 
connection with, the State in no way vital to a, valid epis- 
copacy.' As a Churchman, too, he distinguished be- 
tween the political and ecclesiastical power of bishops. 
And every one who regards episcopal government as 
something more than a mere human polity, entertains 
this distinction, and is ready to avow that he is bound 
in conscience to respect the spiritual far more than 
the temporal authority of his diocesan." * If connec- 
tion with the State be "essential to a valid episco- 
pacy," there was no episcopacy for three hundred 
years of the Christian era, for the Church had no 
political power prior to A.D. 325. Who does not see, 
then, that the political pow r er of bishops is "a mere 
human polity? " Who does not know that this power 
has been abused in every instance in which it has 
been given? What shall be said of a so-called Church 
which complains of persecution, because, having been 

Life of Sandford, vol. i., p. 39. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 119 



defeated in its attempts at resistance to the popular 
will, it presumes to raise the standard of political re- 
bellion against the ^tablished government of the king- 
dom? 

Let us apply a little of the torture of logic to cer- 
tain historical events which occurred a hundred years 
ago. 

The Rev. Samuel Seabury was a native of Connec- 
ticut. His father was a Congregational minister, but 
turned Episcopalian; and the son, Samuel, although 
baptized by a Congregationalist minister, was reared 
among Episcopalian influences, and began at an early 
age to serve the "Society for the Propagation of the 
Gospel in Foreign Parts." In 1753, at the age of 
twenty-four, Mr. Seabury was ordained deacon on the 
21st and priest on the 23d of December. Installed in 
the Province of New Jersey, we find him from time to 
time engaged in the fruitless effort to obtain an Amer- 
ican episcopate. In 1766 he was the secretary of a 
committee of a dozen clergymen who renewed the ap- 
peal for a resident bishop. Dr. Chandler becoming the 
spokesman of the party. His "Appeal 7 ' occasioned 
the controversy of 1768, recorded in the American 
Whig and similar publications. 

After the War of the Revolution began to gravitate 
toward the independence of the colonies, the clergy- 
men of Connecticut — ten in number — met in the little 
village of Woodbury, at the house of the Eev. John 
Rutgers Marshall, a missionary of the "Yenerable 
Society." True to the hand that had fed them, but 
false to the country that gave them birth, some of 
these clergymen had become notorious for their loy- 
alty to George III. The right to their opinions, it is 



120 The High -churchman Disarmed: 



probable, would have been conceded to them by the 
patriotic party if they had refused to become active 
partisans. "Ask the aged people on these shores," 
says Edwin Hall, " who were the most dreaded foes of 
freedom here ? Who were the guides of their enemies 
in their nightly incursions for plunder and rapine? 
Who stole upon their dwellings, to seize the husbands, 
or fathers, or sons, and to carry them off to the jails 
and prison-ships, many of them never to return? 
Who ambushed the sanctuary on the Sabbath, and 
with bayonets invaded the house of God, to seize 
upon the unarmed worshipers? The answer will de- 
clare the actual influence of the prelatical system, in 
the days that tried men's souls." " The day that saw 
the town of Norwalk laid in ashes saw also the Eector 
of St. Paul's retiring with the marauders of the Brit- 
ish fleet." * 

These were scarcely the class of men to initiate a 
movement for the establishment of a Christian Church 
in the new republic. Nevertheless, these clergymen, 
ten in number, met in secret conclave in the village of 
Woodbury, in the last week of March, 1783. " No lay- 
men were admitted to the gathering," says Dr. Beards- 
ley, "and it was so secret as to be known only to the 
clergy. Who of the fourteen in the State were absent 
cannot now be ascertained, for, though Mr. Jarvis was 
the secretary, no minutes were kept to be made pub- 
lic, and consequently the names were not preserved. 
The fear of opposition, and perhaps the fear of not 
having the hearty concurrence of their lay brethren, 
led to the secrecy of the movement." f " On the festi- 
val of the Annunciation, without a formal election, they 
* Puritans and Their Principles, p. 400. y Life of Seabury, p. G3. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 121 



selected two persons, the Rev. Jeremiah Learning and 
the Rev. Samuel Seabury, as suitable, either of them, 
to go to England and obtain, if possible, episcopal 
consecration."* These gentlemen were in New York, 
under the shelter of the British army. Mr. Learning 
had been "the faithful missionary at Norwalk," Dr. 
Beardsley tells us, for twenty-one years. Can it be 
possible that this Mr. Learning was the Rector of St. 
Paul's who accompanied the British troops at the 
burning of Norwalk? It is more than likely, for the 
other gentleman selected as a candidate for the epis- 
copacy was at that moment chaplain in a British reg- 
iment. No wonder, then, that "no laymen were ad- 
mitted" to this gathering — ten royalist clergymen 
selecting candidates for the episcopacy in a Church 
to be established for the republican citizens of the 
United States! 

Mr. Learning declined the office. The pilgrimage 
was a long and hazardous one, and he was getting old. 
"He was well known to the Connecticut clergy, and a 
long intercourse with him had won their entire re- 
spect and confidence." But the respect of British and 
Tory clergymen was quite a different thing from the 
confidence that American republicans are supposed to 
place in their spiritual advisers. Dr. Seabury was a 
younger man by twelve years, but he was in every 
way as objectionable to the patriots of Connecticut. 
They were just emerging from a bloody war of seven 
years' duration. They could not take their political 
enemies and oppressors as their spiritual guides. 
Dr. Seabury had been visited by the "Sons of Lib- 
erty," and his retreat was more hasty than dignified. 



*Life of Seabury, p. 64. 



122 



The High-church man Disarmed : 



As early as the fall of 1776 lie took refuge within the 
lines of the King's army. When the royal troops re- 
tired from Westchester he followed them. In Feb- 
ruary, 1778, he was appointed chaplain to the King's 
American regiment, and continued in this relation 
until his services were no longer needed, and then re- 
tired on half -pay. 

The surrender of Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown, in 
October, 1781, had discouraged the ministers of George 
III., and signs of peace began to appear early in 1782. 
There was nothing definite, however, until August, 
when General Washington received intelligence that 
negotiations for a general peace had been entered into 
at Paris. This was a signal for alarm to Seabury and 
his brethren. "It is impossible," wrote the Kev. John 
Payne to the Society, August 14, 1782, " for words to 
describe the universal consternation which was pro- 
duced here by the communication of a letter from his 
majesty's Commissioner to General Washington, in 
consequence of directions from England, informing 
him of the King's command to his Minister Plenipo- 
tentiary at Paris, to propose the independence of the 
thirteen provinces in the first instance, instead of 
making it the subject of a general treaty."* "The 
Church " was in danger by the triumph of the patriot 
party. The Philadelphia clergy— that is to say, the 
Eev. Dr. White— "not only rushed headlong into the 
rebellion themselves, but perverted the judgment, 
and soured the tempers, and inflamed the passions of 
the people by sermons and orations, both from the 
pulpit and the press." So wrote Dr. Seabury five 
years before. But now the tables were turned; White 
* Life of Seabury, p. 55. 



A Defense of Oar Methodist Fathers. 



123 



was chaplain to the rebel Congress, Seabury to a Tory 
regiment. The day of reckoning had come, and a lit- 
tle of the wisdom of this world was required. Some 
of the Tory brethren were doomed to emigrate. Con- 
fiscation of their property was inevitable. Their con- 
duct had made it so. But Dr. Seabury, like the un- 
just steward, had an opportunity to provide against 
the evil day. If he could make the trip to Europe, 
and return with a bishop's staff, his political record 
would be condoned and forgotten. He had a formi- 
dable rival. Dr. White, by all the considerations of 
justice, as well as good policy, would be a candidate 
for the episcopacy in the Church yet to be established. 
He was a Whig, and had entered into the republican 
cause without reserve. He was, beyond doubt, the 
most prominent man among the Episcopalians in 
America. He had, moreover, during the war pub- 
lished a pamphlet, in which he proposed to organize 
an Episcopal Church without waiting for the "apos- 
tolical succession." 

This incident furnished an admirable opportunity 
for the clergy of Connecticut and their candidate. 
Dr. Seabury accepted the nomination, and matters 
proceeded with equal energy and secrecy. Two or 
three clergymen in New York were taken into confi- 
dence. High-sounding phrases, such as " Clergy of 
Connecticut" and "Convention of the Clergy," were 
employed in the address to the Archbishop of York, 
the See of Canterbury being at that time vacant. The 
document is dated April 21, 1783. Four days later 
these ten clergymen at Woodbury address a letter of 
remonstration to Dr. White concerning his pamphlet. 
They enter into a controversy with him in regard to 



124 



The Htgh-ehureliman Disarmed: 



his views on the subject of ordination. " Yon plead 
necessity," say the remonstrants, " and argue that 
the best writers in the Church admit of Presbyterian 
ordination, where Episcopal cannot be had. To prove 
this, you quote concessions from the venerable Hooker 
and Dr. Chandler, which their exuberant charity to 
the reformed Churches abroad led them to make, ' * 

Dr. White answers their letter in due season, arid 
it is very refreshing, at this point of time, to observe 
how studiously the Connecticut brethren keep their 
secret from the knowledge of the Philadelphia clerg} r - 
man. In the simplicity of his heart, with as much of 
verbal candor as his diplomatic style of writing would 
admit, he tells them that the prospect of peace will 
render the measures proposed in his pamphlet un- 
necessary. But not a syllable escapes from, the Con- 
necticut brethren to the effect that they have a con- 
trivance that w r ill cut the Gordian knot. Dr. Seabury 
had been furnished with testimonials, signed by three 
clergymen in New York, one of whom is the man who 
refused to leave out the prayer for the King at the re- 
quest of General Washington. Dr. Ingliss must move 
to a more congenial climate, but he does a kind act to 
his brother Tory before his departure. 

Dr. Seabury arrived in London on the 7th of July, 
1783. He had taken time by the forelock. The Brit- 
ish troops were still in New York. A week after his 
arrival the Doctor writes to his brethren in Connecti- 
cut. He found the Bishop of London very agreeable 
to the scheme, but unwilling to take the lead in it. 
" The old policy of preferring political expediency to 
religious right," says Dr. Beardsley, "still paralyzed 
* White's Memoir.-, p. 337. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 125 



the energies of the Church of England, and dimin- 
ished the fervency of her zeal and the extent of her 
charity." "My greatest fear arises from the matter 
becoming public, as it now must, and that the Dis- 
senters here will prevail on your government to apply 
against it. This, I think, would effectually crush it, 
at least as far as it relates to Connecticut." * Dr. Sea- 
bury writes after that fashion to his friends. He is 
trying to get Esau's birthright, and is afraid that Isaac 
will find it out. Eebecca must keep a sharp lookout, 
if any detective gets upon his track. "You will, 
therefore, do well to attend to this circumstance your- 
selves, and get such of your friends as you can trust to 
find out should any such intelligence come from hence. 
In that case, I think it would be best to avow your de- 
sign, and try what strength you can muster in the As- 
sembly to support it." f 

The biographer of Bishop Hobart tells us that "the 
Archbishop of Canterbury declined consecrating Dr. 
Seabury on this ground, among others, that he was 
not the choice of the Church at large." % So, it seems, 
the secret convention of ten men was discovered, after 
all their efforts to escape detection. But the corre- 
spondence between Dr. Seabury and his convention 
agents on this side of the water is remarkable in 
many respects. His Grace of Canterbury is well dis- 
posed at the beginning, but he is afraid of several 
things. He has no right to send a bishop to Con- 
necticut. If he sends him, they will not receive him. 
If they receive him, they will not support him. Be- 
sides he cannot be ordained unless he takes the oaths 
of allegiance and supremacy, and that an American 
* Life of Seabury, p. 88. f Ibid. J Life of Hobart, p. 85, 



126 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



citizen cannot do. In order to break the back of one 
of these objections, the friends in Connecticut were 
instructed to get a resolution of the Legislature per- 
mitting a bishop to reside among them. But this let- 
ter must be properly interpreted in order to have the 
desired effect. If it could bear the interpretation of 
a request from the Assembly of Connecticut, a great 
deal would be accomplished. 

After so long a time spent in wearisome interviews 
with his Grace of Canterbury and divers others, a new 
step was devised by the brethren in Connecticut. The 
clergy met in convention on the 13th of January, 1784, 
and appointed a committee "to collect the opinions of 
the leading members of the Assembly concerning an 
application by the clergy of the Episcopal Church in 
Connecticut for the legal protection of a bishop for 
said Church, when they shall be able to procure one 
agreeable to the common rights of Christians, as 
these rights are now claimed and understood by all 
denominations of Christians in the State."* The 
leading members were consulted, and the committee 
were informed that an act of Assembly had been 
passed, in which all denominations were placed upon 
an equal footing, and that under this statute their 
bishop would have the same "protection" that other 
ministers enjoyed. The Connecticut Legislature was 
not disposed, however, to permit its name and author- 
ity to be used in effecting a call upon the Archbishop 
of Canterbury or any one else. The letter containing 
this act was forwarded to Dr. Seabury, and by him shown 
to the bishops. The letter raised the writers in the esti- 
mation of the English prelates, but did nothing more. 



* Life of Seaburv, p. 93. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 127 



Twelve months expired, and the candidate for con- 
secration was making the rounds, from Canterbury to 
London, from London to York, from York to Canter- 
bury again. At last it was discovered that the bish- 
ops would expose themselves to the statute of praem- 
unire if they ordained Dr. Seabury without an Act 
of Parliament! To Parliament, then, the Doctor 
turned, and began a crusade against that venerable 
fortress of English law, liberty, and grandeur. Dr. 
Seabury worked and waited, and the Act of Parlia- 
ment came; but, alas! it was not at all to his purpose. 
It authorized the Bishop of London to admit foreign 
candidates to the order of deacon and priest, but gave 
no permission to consecrate a bishop for Connecticut 
or for any of the American States. Human patience 
could last no longer. 

Meantime this whole affair, the correspondence, the 
siege at the doors of the bishops and archbishops, had 
been kept such a profound secret that Dr. White knew 
not a word of it for fourteen months after the enter- 
prise began. The ten or a dozen persons in posses- 
sion of the secret in March, 1783, had kept it sacredly 
until an occasion compelled a confession of the whole 
matter. In the city of Brunswick, New Jersey, in 
May, 1784, a few clergymen of New York, New Jer- 
sey, and Pennsylvania met for the purpose of adopt- 
ing measures concerning a society for the support of 
widows and children of deceased clergymen. The op- 
portunity was a favorable one for consultation among 
the friends of episcopacy, and the first day of the 
meeting was devoted to the discussion of the princi- 
ples of ecclesiastical union. " The next morning," 
says Dr. White, "the author was taken aside, before 



12S 



The High -churchman Disarmed: 



the meeting, by Mr. Benjamin Moore, who expressed 
the wish of himself and others that nothing should be 
further urged upon the subject, as they found them- 
selves peculiarly circumstanced, in consequence of 
their having joined the clergy of Connecticut in their 
application for the consecration of a bishop. This 
brought to the knowledge of the clergy from Phila- 
delphia what they had not known, that Dr. Samuel 
Seabury, of the State of New York, who had sailed 
for England just before the evacuation of New York 
by the British troops, carried with him a petition to 
the English bishops for his consecration."* 

It may be possible to reconcile this conduct with 
the dictates of moral honesty. Much depends upon 
the standard by which any given action is to be tested. 
If there be such a thing as a pious fraud, the Jesuit- 
ical doctrine that "the end sanctifies the means" may 
excuse or extenuate the faults and sins of Protestants 
as well as of Bomanists. But it is sufficient to yield 
our personal sense of truth and dignity to the require- 
ments of inexorable policy, without raising upon the 
ruins of a wrecked conscience a standard whereby we 
are to acquit or condemn our fellow-men. It is be- 
cause the American Methodists refused to become 
parties to a transaction of this kind that the amiable 
but misguided brother of the founder of Methodism 
pronounced a strong but harmless anathema against 
them. For Ms sins against canonical obedience High- 
churchmen have a plenary indulgence, because he f ur- 

* White's Memoirs, p. 84. It was not "jnst before" the evacua- 
tion of New York that Dr. Seabury sailed. He reached London 
July 7, and the British troops left the city on the 25th of November, 
1783, more xhzn five months after the departure of Dr. Seabury for 
London. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 129 



nished them with a timely epigram that has served as 
a substitute for argument and reason for more than a 
hundred years. 

We return to Dr. Seabury. While he was writing 
and hoping, working and despairing in London, Dr. 
Berkeley, the second son of the famous Bishop of 
Cloyne, had appointed himself an embassador to the 
Non-jurors of Scotland. He asks the question, "Can 
any proper persons be found who, with the spirit of 
confessors, would convey the great blessing of the 
Protestant episcopacy from the persecuted Church of 
Scotland to the struggling, persecuted Protestant 
Episcopalian worshipers in America?" Shades of 
Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer! "The persecuted 
Protestant Episcopalian worshipers in America!" 
Such absurdities as this bring all history and Church 
integrity into question. There is not in the annals of 
America an instance of "persecution" in which an 
Episcopalian suffered the loss of liberty, property, or 
life, on account of his religion. But the warm-heart- 
ed Irishman did not cease his well-meant efforts until 
the Scotch bishops consented to ordain Dr. Seabury. 

"Unhappily the connection of this Church (of En- 
gland) with the State is so intimate," he writes, "that 
the bishops can do little without the consent of the 
ministry, and the ministry have refused to permit a 
bishop to be consecrated for Connecticut, or for any 
other of the thirteen States, without the formal re- 
quest, or at least consent, of Congress, which there is 
no chance of obtaining, and which the clergy would 
not apply for were the chance ever so good." Thus 
does the candidate despair of success in England. 
He is still receiving a salary from the "Venerable 
9 



130 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



Society," and there are still other sources of his in- 
come, which will be mentioned hereafter. He has had 
an eye, however, in all this business, to the patronage 
of the Society and its employes in Connecticut. "I 
indeed think it my duty to conduct the matter in such 
a manner as shall risk the salaries which the mission- 
aries in Connecticut receive from the Society here as 
little as possible, and I persuade myself it may bo 
done so as to make that risk next to nothing. With 
respect to my own salary, if the Society choose to 
withdraw it, I am ready to part with it."* In the 
same letter, within a dozen lines of these words just 
quoted, he has boasted of more than forty Episcopal 
congregations in the State, and in these there are at 
least forty thousand persons — " a body too large to be 
needlessly affronted in an elective government! " For 
these forty congregations there are fourteen ministers, 
and every one of them maintained, wholly or in part, 
by the " Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in 
Foreign Parts." 

But, whether paid or unpaid, the candidate resolved 
to obtain the "succession," and went to Edinburgh 
after it. On the 17th of November, 1784, in a dwell- 
ing house in Long Acre, a narrow lane of the city, Dr. 
Seabury received whatever of Episcopal ordination 
the three Scotch bishops could give him. To those 
who regard this transaction from a scriptural stand- 
point, there is no difficulty whatever. Whether the 
three ministers who participated in the act of ordina- 
tion were real bishops or only presbyters in the 
Church, it is not at all material. The broad seal of 
the kingdom of Jesus Christ covers all commissions 

-Life of Seabury, p. 115. 



131 



to preach the gospel, and no hand of man is essential 
to the full and absolute qualification of the messen- 
gers of the glad tidings of salvation- 
It is only from the stand-point of the High-church- 
man that the affair is worthy of examination or of de- 
bate. According to the creed of those who contend 
for the "uninterrupted transmission of ministerial au- 
thority from the apostles," these Scotchmen had un- 
doubtedly forfeited, if they ever possessed, " the suc- 
cession." The same legislative power that had created 
the Episcopal Church in Scotland had destroyed it. 
A heavy penalty was laid upon any who pretended to 
revive it, or who professed to meet in its name and for 
its ecclesiastical purposes. Whether justly or unjustly, 
it is not necessary to decide, but the action of the 
British Legislature had destroyed the Episcopal 
Church of Scotland. A dozen clergymen, or ten 
thousand clergymen, had no more right to assemble 
themselves together and declare themselves to be the 
Church of Scotland than the Protestant Episcopal 
Church in the United States has to declare itself the 
American Church. If a dozen gentlemen in Scotland, 
holding appointment from a dethroned King of Great 
Britain, have the right to declare themselves the 
Episcopal Church of Scotland, a dozen Boman Cath- 
olic clergymen have the right to declare themselves 
the true Church of England. Popery was never more 
absolutely deprived of its Church character and eccle- 
siastical authority in England than episcopacy was in 
Scotland. The same arguments that reinstate the 
one restore the other. Bishops without dioceses, and 
dioceses without parishes, and churches without pas- 
tors — a skeleton machinery that perpetuates itself in 



132 The High-churchman Disarmed: 

defiance of law and in the face of the most restrictive 
edicts— cannot constitute a Church of Christ. It can- 
not deserve this title when the single motive for the 
distinctive existence of the Society is a purely polit- 
ical question, with which a scriptural Church never 
had and never can have any thing to do without aban- 
doning its character as a Church and assuming the 
attitude of a political party. Whether James II. or 
William III. was the rightful King of Great Britain 
was a question that had no more to do with the proper 
functions of a Church than the ordination of a bish- 
op has with the mathematical problem of squaring the 
circle. If the Episcopal party in Scotland chose to 
suspend their existence as a Church upon the issue, 
the decision was against them, and they passed out of 
being as effectually as if every member of their organ- 
ization had perished in a night. 

But whatever may have been the value of the ben- 
efit received at the hands of the three Episcopal breth- 
ren in Scotland, it was not suffered to be bestowed 
without at least one protest from America. Dr. 
White does not appear to have turned aside from 
the even tenor of his way. He was engaged in consult- 
ing with his brethren, giving and taking advice, and 
putting things in order for future collective action. 
A certain Dr. Smith, of Maryland, "had views of 
his own to promote," Dr. Beardsley tells us; and he 
wrote a warning letter to the adventurous Scotch- 
men, "appealing to them, if they valued their own 
peace and advantage as a Christian society, not to 
meddle with the consecration. He affirmed that it 
was against the earnest and sound advice of the arch- 
bishops of Canterbury and York, to whom Dr. Sea- 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 133 



bury's design was communicated, they not thinking 
him a fit person, especially as he was actively and 
deeply engaged against Congress; that he Avould by 
this forward step render episcopacy suspected there, 
the people not having had time, after a total derange- 
ment of their civil affairs, to consider as yet of eccle- 
siastical; and if it were unexpectedly and rashly in- 
troduced among them at the instigation of a few clergy 
only that remain, without their being consulted, would 
occasion it to be entirely slighted, unless with the ap- 
probation of the State they belong to; which is what 
they are laboring after just now, having called several 
provincial meetings together this autumn to settle 
some preliminary articles of a Protestant Episcopal 
Church, as near as may be to that of England or Scot- 
land."* 

An impartial reader will see in this letter not the 
envious spirit which courted the honor about to be 
bestowed upon another, but the wise, prudent, and 
patriotic spirit of a man equally the friend of his 
country and of his Church. Although a Scotchman 
by birth, he was a true man, and adhered to the cause 
of the colonies, and it had been far better for the 
Protestant Episcopal Church if his counsels had been 
heeded by the ardent Scotchmen. No matter what 
the character of Dr. Seabury was ; no matter that he 
may have been distinguished for piety, and that his 
private character was beyond reproach. He was a 
Tory, and proposed to become the pastor of a flock in 
a country whose independence he had antagonized. 
He was an open, undisguised, uncompromising ene- 
my to republicanism, and proposed to create a diocese 
*Life of Seabury, p. 120. 



134 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



in a republic, with republicans for his parishioners. He 
was about to proceed to a territory where the ashes of 
consuming fires were not yet cold — fires of hatred and 
vindictiveness which his own party had kindled, and 
his own conduct had perpetuated. 

The imprudence was only equaled by the impu- 
dence of the undertaking. To enter upon a secret 
expedition, with the intention of compelling a people 
to accept or reject him, by appealing to their love of 
the Church and their desire to avoid the scandal of an 
act of direct repudiation, reveals characteristics which, 
happily, are seldom found in the modern history of 
Christianity. To do this, too, at the same time that 
he held the claim and received the salary of a chap- 
lain of the British army on half-pay, was an act of 
presumption which nothing but a boundless charity 
can reconcile with the principles of honor. He not 
only entered the service of his country's enemies, but 
five years after he became a bishop of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in the United States, he was draw- 
ing his half -pay as a chaplain in the army of George 
III. Nothing but the prudence of Dr. White pre- 
vented this fact from disturbing the convention of 
1789* 

The connection of Dr. Chandler with the early peti- 
tions and appeals relating to the American episcopate 
will justify the notice of an inaccuracy in the "Life of 
Bishop Hobart," and a similar blunder in "White- 
head's Life of Wesley." In the "Life of Hobart" 
we are told that the Bishop of London, paying a com- 
pliment to Dr. Chandler for his "Appeals" to the 
government in Church and State, remarked that he 
;; " White's Memoirs, p. 168. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



135 



hoped "such an essential service would not be forgot- 
ten." "The concluding word of the above quotation 
deserves notice," says the biographer, "as it shows 
that the Bishop underrated the motives of the writer. 
In after years, when the policy for which Dr. Chand- 
ler now vainly pleaded was freely adopted by the 
British Government toward their remaining Ameri- 
can colonies, the newly created bishopric of Nova 
Scotia was, without solicitation, offered to him, while 
he had the satisfaction of showing, by his equally de- 
cided refusal, that he had petitioned in former times 
for the Church, not for himself." * 

In the letter of the New York clergymen to the 
Archbishop of York, Dr. Chandler was recommended 
for the bishopric of Nova Scotia, and the influence of 
Sir Guy Carleton was solicited in his behalf, f Dr. 
Chandler was in England during the war, and accord- 
ing to the testimony of Dr. Seabury, he applied in 
person for the bishopric of Nova Scotia. Under date 
of May 3, 1784, Dr. Seabury says: " Dr. Chandler has 
been with him (the Archbishop of Canterbury) to-day, 
on the subject of the Nova Scotia episcopate, which, 
I believe, will be effected." % Dr. White, in the "Ad- 
ditional Statements" of his Memoirs, says: "This 
learned and respectable gentleman (Dr. Chandler), 
after having been in England during the war, had 
returned to his family and former residence, laboring 
under a cancerous or scorbutic complaint, which had 
consumed a considerable proportion of his face. ^ He 
had been designed for the contemplated bishopric of 
Nova Scotia, as th e author was afterward informed 

~^ifbof IloWt, p. 18. f White's Memoirs, p. 335. % Life of Sea- 
burv, p. 101. 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



by the Archbishop of Canterbury. His complaint 
became too bad to admit of his undertaking the 
charge."* 

Finally, Dr. Whitehead, in his "Life of Wesley," 
quoting a letter to Dr. Chandler, calls him "one of 
the American bishops ordained in England, "f Thus 
we have a series of errors, only worthy of notice be- 
cause the characters are historical. Dr. Chandler did 
Seek the bishopric of Nova Scotia, and would have 
been appointed if his health had not interfered. He 
had served the cause approved by his conscience, and 
his melancholy end was a subject of regret to those 
who had opposed as well as those who had favored 
his opinions. 



* White's Memoirs, p. 137. f Life of Wesley, p. 528. 



Gippifeep ¥111. 



John Adams and Benjamin Franklin in Chase of an Apostolical 
Succession— Accidental Allusion results in Diplomacy— Act df 
Parliament for supplying Clergymen with Orders— Court of Den- 
mark ready to Ordain Preachers for America— Dr. White op- 
posed to Foreign Interference— Benjamin Franklin's Letter— The 
"Cross Old Gentleman at Canterbury "—Good Common Sense— 
A hundred years hence— Humor— Denmark did not offer Epis- 
copacy to America— A good reason why— No Apostolical Succes- 
sion in Denmark— Lost— Testimony of Dr. Hook and others- 
Superintendents are Bishops in Denmark. 



X between the United States and Great Britain, a 
few young men crossed the Atlantic and sought ordi- 
nation at the hands of the Bishop of London. That 
prelate had no legal authority in any of the thirteen 
colonies, and of course had none in the new relations 
that the people of America had assumed. As a mat- 
ter of course, Bishop Lowth declined to ordain the 
candidates. He had refused a similar favor at the so- 
licitation of John Wesley, and had a sufficient reason 
for doing so. He could not ordain a minister without 
requiring canonical obedience to his diocesan. There 
was no diocese and no diocesan, and consequently no 
jurisdiction. There was no logical argument to be 
made in defense of Episcopal ordination for America, 
as the laws of England stood at that time. 

At this juncture, however, Mr. Adams, the Ameri- 
can Minister to Great Britain, proposed the question 
to the "Danish Embassador to Holland. The court of 
Denmark, anxious to show a kindly disposition to the 
young republic, referred the matter to the theological 




proclamation of peace 



(137) 



138 The Higli-cliurchman Disarmed: 



faculty of the kingdom. The outcome of the whole 
affair was an offer to ordain candidates from America, 
on the condition of their signing the Thirty-nine Ar- 
ticles of the Church of England, with the exception 
of the political parts of them; the service to be per- 
formed in Latin, in accommodation to the candidates, 
who might be supposed unacquainted with the lan- 
guage of the country. This affair, from various caus- 
es, has assumed a degree of importance that renders 
it worthy of a somewhat extended notice. 

Mr. Adams, who was a Unitarian, and Benjamin 
Franklin, who was by no means an Episcopalian, seem 
to be engaged in the rather singular employment of 
procuring the "apostolical succession" for the United 
States. In order to understand the merits of the case, 
the entire correspondence is inserted. 

No. L 

[Copy of a letter from John Adams, Esq., to the President of Congress, 
dated the Hague, April 22, 1784.1 

Sir: I received some time since a letter from an American gen- 
tleman now in London, a candidate for orders, desiring to know if 
American candidates might have orders from Protestant bishops on 
the Continent, and complaining that he had been refused by the 
Bishop of London, unless he would take the oaths of allegiance, etc. 

Meeting soon afterward the Danish minister, I had the curiosity to 
inquire of him whether ordination might be had in Denmark. He 
answered me that he knew not, but would soon inform himself. I 
heard no more of it until to-day, when the Secretary of his embassy, 
Mr. De Eosencrantz, made me a visit, and delivered me the papers, 
copies of which are inclosed. Thus it seems that what I meant as 
current conversation only has been made the subject of the deliber- 
ation of the Government of Denmark, and their faculty of theology; 
which makes it necessary for me to transmit it to Congress. I am 
happy to find the decision so liberal. 

I have the honor to be, etc., 
(Signed. 1 ) J. Adams. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 139 



No. II. 

[Translation of a communication of Mr. de St. Saphorin, to Mr, John 
Adams, dated the Hague, April 21, 1784J] 

Mr. de St. Saphorin has the honor to communicate to Mr. Adams 
the answer he lias received from his Excellency the Count de Ko- 
sencrone, Privy Counselor and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs 
of his Danish Majesty, relative to what Mr. Adams desired to know. 
He shall be happy if this account shall be agreeable to him, as well 
as to his superiors, and useful to his fellow-citizens. He has the 
honor to assure him of his respect. 
(Signed, etc.) 

No. III. 

[Translation of the copy of an extract of a letter from his Excellency the 
Count de Rosencrone, Privy Counselor of his Majesty, the King of Ben- 
mark, to Mr. de St. Saphorin, Envoy Extraordinary from his Majesty to 
the States General.'] 

The opinion of the theological faculty having been taken on the 
question made to your Excellency by Mr. Adams, if the American 
ministers of the Church of England can be consecrated here by a bishop 
of the Danish Church, I am ordered by the King to authorize you 
to answer that such an act can take place according to the Danish 
rites; but for the convenience of the Americans, who are supposed not 
to know the Danish language, the Latin language will be made use 
of on the occasion; for the rest, nothing will be exacted from the 
candidates but a profession conformable to the Articles of the En- 
glish Church, omitting the oath called test, which prevents their be- 
ing ordained by the English bishops. 

No. IV. 

Secretary's Ofetce, 6th April, 1785. 

Sir: Copies of the inclosed letters from Mr. John Adams and Mr. 
de St. Saphorin, upon the subject of conferring holy orders agreeably to 
the principles of the Church of England, were this day received by 
Council; who have been pleased to direct that, they should be com- 
municated to you. I must beg that* they be returned to this office, 
as soon as you may find it convenient, and am, 

Sir, with greatest respect, your most obedient, humble servant, 
(Signed.) J. Armstrong, Jr. 

Bey. Dr. Wm. AVhite. 



140 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



No. V. 

[Answer to the letter of Mr. Armstrong:'] 
Sir: I request you to present to the honorable Council my grate- 
ful sentiments of their polite attention to the interests of the Epis- 
copal Church, in your communication of this morning. Their con- 
descension will be my apology for my troubling them with the pe- 
rusal of an act of the British Parliament, having the same opera- 
tion with the liberal and brotherly proceeding of the Danish Gov- 
ernment and clergy. And the liberty I have taken may hereafter 
exempt some of my brethren from the suspicion of having entered 
into obligations inconsistent with their duty to their country. But, 
sir, it would be injustice to the Episcopal Church were I to neglect 
to inform the honorable Board that I take it to be a general senti- 
ment not to depend on any foreign authority for the ordination of 
ministers, or for any other matter appertaining to religion. As the 
light in which we shall hereafter be viewed by our fellow-citizens 
must depend on an adherence to the above-mentioned principle, I 
take the liberty to submit to the honorable Council two printed ac- 
counts of proceedings held in this city and in New York. 

With most dutiful thanks to the honorable Board, and with all 
due submission, I am, sir, 

Their and your very humble servant, 

Wm. White. 

April 6th, 1785. 

J. Armstrong, Esq. 

There are several features of interest in the forego- 
ing letters. The Danish minister evidently supposed 
that the want of the " apostolical succession " was one 
that was sorely exercising the young American repub- 
lic, inasmuch as the embassador of that people had 
undertaken to negotiate for a supply of the mysteri- 
ous virtue supposed to exist in the hands of Episco- 
pal dignitaries in Europe. As the Danes had an in- 
stitution called episcopacy, they were perfectly will- 
ing to allow American gentlemen to receive authority 
to preach the gospel by way of Denmark. Mr. Ad- 
ams had committed a diplomatic blunder, but he es- 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 141 



caped from the meshes as gracefully as possible. He 
meant what he said to be only as " current conversa- 
tion," but was surprised to find that the matter of lay- 
ing a pair of hands on the head of a young gentleman 
from America had become an international question, 
and therefore proceeded to place the matter in the 
hands of the President of the Continental Congress. 
Mr. Adams does not conceal the feeling of amuse- 
ment which the incident has awakened in his mind; 
for personally he regards the "apostolical succession" 
to be about as necessary or as helpful to a minister as 
the toga of Cicero would be to an orator of the pres- 
ent age. 

But the court of Denmark gravely considers the 
case, and consents to have "the American ministers 
of the Church of England" consecrated "according 
to Danish rites," provided they — the American min- 
isters — make "a profession conformable to the Afti- 
cles of the English Church, omitting the oath called 
test," the said "oath called test" preventing "their 
being ordained by the English bishops! " Never was 
there such a conglomeration of persons, principles, 
and Churches, since the dawn of civilization! "Amer- 
ican ministers of the Church of England," to be or- 
dained according to "the principles of the Church of 
England," in the kingdom of Denmark, by the "rites 
of the Danish Church," after conforming to the doc- 
trines of the Church of England! 

This delectable specimen of diplomacy is conveyed 
to Dr. White by the Secretary of the Council, the cor- 
respondence having been that day received, after the 
expiration of nearly twelve months from the reception 
of the letter by Mr. Adams. Of such profound im- 



142 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



portance is the record of the transaction that the Sec- 
retary begs the excellent Dr. White to return to the 
office the "copies" of the letters. That the originals 
might be required for the purpose of placing them on 
file is apparent, but why the Secretary should wish to 
have the copies returned is beyond the comprehen- 
sion of ordinary men. 

Dr. White, however, improves the occasion. In a 
style which distinguishes him above his fellows — a 
style that would have qualified him for diplomatic 
service almost anywhere— he returns thanks to the 
Council for "their polite attention to the interests of 
the Episcopal Church." But he requires them to 
read, as a reward or a punishment for their conde- 
scension, "an Act of the British Parliament, having 
the same operation with the liberal and brotherly pro- 
ceeding of the Danish Government and clergy." This 
Act he mentions in another place, where his words 
seem to conflict with the position assumed in this let- 
ter to the Secretary. "Another resource remained," 
says the Bishop, speaking of the Philadelphia Con- 
vention of September, 1785, "in foreign ordination, 
which had been made the easier by the Act of the 
British Parliament, passed in the preceding year, to 
enable the Bishop of London to ordain citizens or 
subjects of foreign countries without exacting the 
usual oaths. But besides that, this would have kept 
the Church under the same hardships which had here- 
tofore existed, and had been so long complained of— 
dependence on a foreign country in spirituals, when 
there had taken place independence in temporals, is 
what no prudent person would have pleaded for."* 

" : ' r Memoirs of the Church, p. 114. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 143 



If we can succeed in disentangling this web-work 
of words, we may arrive at an intelligible idea of the 
Doctor's meaning. He says, in April, 1785, that the 
British Parliament has passed a liberal and brotherly 
act, one having the same operation as the proceeding 
of the Government and clergy of Denmark; but the 
general sentiment of Episcopalians in the United 
States is opposed to dependence upon "any foreign 
authority for the ordination of ministers, or for any 
other m atter appertaining to religion. " If they should 
consent to send their young men, as aforetime, across 
the water to be ordained — even if no unrepublican 
oaths were exacted of them — the American people 
would naturally, and justly, regard the Episcopal 
Church with contempt and scorn. Thus far, all is 
clear enough. Dr. White wanted a Church, a genu- 
ine, independent, self-governing Church. He had 
quite a number of members, but they had no head. 
They cannot manufacture a head, and until they get 
one they are an acephalous body. " The Middle and 
Southern States were for delay," says Dr. McVickar, 
in the Life of Bishop Hobart. " ' Let us first gather 
together,' said they, 'our scattered members.' The 
language of the East and North was wiser: 'Let us 
first have a head to see, and then we shall be better 
enabled to find our members.' " * 

Now Dr. White says that his people are resolved 
not to depend upon any foreign country for the ordi- 
nation of ministers, nor "for any other matter apj)er- 
taining to religion." How, then, can they obtain the 
head that is to see, and then to gather the members? 
Is it not the most absolute dependence that is con- 



* Life of Hobart, p. 84. 



144 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



ceivable to have the creation of a head determined by 
the will of a foreign nation? Surely the head "ap- 
pertains to religion." To receive that head at the op- 
tion of a foreign authority is to be dependent upon 
that authority, and yet Dr. White says that his people 
have resolved not to do this! It is a maze of contra- 
dictions, in which the diplomatic speech of the excel- 
lent man enables him " to explain without explain- 
ing." The liberty he takes, in notifying the Supreme 
Council of the State of Pennsylvania that a liberal 
and brotherly act has been passed by the British Par- 
liament, "may hereafter exempt some of " his "breth- 
ren from the suspicion of having entered into obliga- 
tions inconsistent with their duty to their country." 
What does he mean by these words? If American 
candidates are hereafter ordained by the Bishop of 
London, the Act of Parliament would exempt them 
from this charge; but in what way does Dr. White's 
communication to the Supreme Council of Pennsylva- 
nia accomplish that result? Unless the Council are 
the parties likely to entertain the suspicions, and these 
gentlemen have no other means of learning the nature 
of the Act of Parliament, except that afforded by Dr. 
White, we must resign the sentence to that obscurity 
of purpose which only the esteemed author could re- 
move. 

While Mr. Adams, the Unitarian Independent has 
been in chase of the "succession" in London, and at 
the Hague, we find the sober, discreet, but humor- 
loving Benjamin Franklin similarly employed in Par- 
is. The persevering young gentlemen from Maryland 
and South Carolina were determined to bring the en- 
voys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary of 



A Defense of Oar Methodist Fathers. 145 



the American republic into the controversy, and they 
presented their petitions to these republican embassa- 
dors with a zeal which deserves commemoration. The 
letter of Dr. Franklin is characteristic in the highest 
degree, and will not detract from his well-won reputa- 
tion for good sense and sound judgment. It is a 
strong presentation of the case from a stand-point 
which no thoughful theologian can afford to despise: 

[To Messrs. Weems and Grant, citizens of the United States, in London.'] 

Paris, 18 July, 1784. 
Gentlemen: On receipt of your letter acquainting me that the 
Archbishop of Canterbury would not permit you to be ordained unless 
you took the oath of allegiance, I applied to a clergyman of my ac- 
quaintance for information on the subject of your obtaining ordina- 
tion here. His opinion was that it could not be done, and that if it 
were done, you would be required to vow obedience to the Archbish- 
op of Paris. I next inquired of the Pope's Nuncio, whether you 
might not be ordained by the Bishop of America, powers being sent 
him for the purpose, if he has them not already. The answer was, 
The thing is impossible, unless the gentlemen become Catholics. 
This is an affair of which I know but very little, and therefore I 
may ask questions and propose means that are improper or imprac- 
ticable. But, what is the necessity of your being connected with the 
Church of England? Would it not do as well if you were of the 
Church of Ireland? The religion is the same, though there is a 
different set of bishops and archbishops. Perhaps if you were to ap- 
ply to the Bishop of Derry, who is a man of liberal sentiments, he 
might give you orders, as of that Church. If both Britain and Ire- 
land refuse you (and I am not sure that the Bishop of Denmark or 
Sweden would ordain you unless you became Lutherans), what is 
then to be done? Next to becoming Presbyterians, the Episcopal 
clergy of America, in my humble opinion, cannot do better than to 
follow the example of the first clergy in Scotland soon after the con- 
version of that country to Christianity, when their King had 'built 
the Cathedral of St. Andrews, and requested the King of Northum- 
berland to lend his bishops to ordain one of them, that their clergy 
might not, as heretofore, be obliged to go to Northumberland for or- 
10 



146 The lligh-cliitrckmmi Disarmed: 



ders; and their request was refused. They assembled in the cathe- 
dral, and the miter, crosier, and robes of a bishop being laid upon 
the altar, they, after earnest prayers for direction in their choice, 
elected one of their own number, when the King said to him : "Arise 
go to the altar, and receive your office at the hand of God." His 
brethren led him to the altar, robed him, put the crosier in his hand, 
and he became the first Bishop of Scotland. 

If the British islands were sunk in the sea (and the surface of the 
globe has suffered greater changes), you would probably take some 
such method as this; and if they persist in denying your ordination, 
it is the same thing. A hundred years hence, when people are more 
enlightened, it will be wondered at that men in America, qual- 
ified by their learning and piety to pray for and instruct their 
neighbors, should not be permitted to do it till they had made a 
voyage of six thousand miles out and home, to ask leave of a cross i 
old gentleman at Canterbury, who seems by your account to have as 
little regard for the souls of the people of Maryland as King Will- 
iam's Attorney-general Seymour had for those of Virginia. The 
Reverend Commissary Blair, who projected the college of that prov- 
ince, and was in England to solicit benefactions and a charter, re- 
lates that the Queen, in the King's absence, having ordered Sey- 
mour to draw up the charter, which was to be given with two thou- 
sand pounds in money, he opposed the grant, saying that the nation 
was engaged in an expensive war, that the money was wanted for 
better purposes, and he did not see the least occasion for a college in 
Virginia. Blair represented to him that its intention was to educate 
and qualify young men to be ministers of the gospel, much wanted 
there; and begged Mr. Attorney would consider that the people of 
Virginia had souls to be saved as well as those of England. " Souls?" 
said he; " your souls! make tobacco." 

I have the honor to be, gentlemen, etc. 

B. Franklin. 

The union of genuine humor with strong common 
sense places this letter among the best productions of 
the practical philosopher. Franklin humored the 
wishes of his young countrymen as far as he thought 
it proper to do so, and doubtless subjected himself to 
no little criticism in his attempts to please them; but 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 117 



failing in his efforts, lie politely tells them that they 
are, after all, in pursuit of something that is not 
worth the trouble. That any man in Europe should 
have it in his power to grant or refuse permission to 
preach the gospel in America was, to his strong com- 
mon sense, a most ludicrous, if not incredible thing; 
not a whit less objectionable than the superstitions 
from which the Protestant world had turned away at 
the Reformation. Living, as we do, at the end of the 
hundred years which he mentions, it is rather in the 
spirit of humiliation that we look back upon these 
clerical adventurers who were knocking at all sorts of 
doors to find somebody who was entitled to the honor 
of giving them ' marching orders." 

The affair of Mr. Adams, however, has given cur- 
rency to an error which not even the authority of Dr. 
White has been able to correct. "At this moment an- 
other source for obtaining episcopal consecration was 
opened through the medium of the Church of Denmark, 
and the correspondence entered into on the occasion 
went so far as to obtain from the Danish authorities the 
manner in which and the terms on which it would have 
been granted."* Such are the terms employed by 
Dr. McVickar to describe the proposal of the Danish 
authorities. But the fact is that no offer of episcopal 
consecration was ever made. The Dane,s offered to 
ordain some young men to the ministry, they did not 
propose to create an episcopacy for the United States. 
The remark of Bishop Hobart's biographer, that 
:< such an episcopate must have been unquestioned," 
will be examined in the light of information which 
neither Dr. White nor Dr. McVickar possessed. An- 



* Life of Hobart, p. 90. 



148 The High -churchman Disarmed: 



other eulogist of Bishop Hobart will give some curi- 
ous testimony upon this point— the canonical charac- 
ter of the Episcopal Church of Denmark. 

The Bev. Dr. Colton, in his work entitled " Genius 
and Mission of the Church," says: "Although epis- 
copacy had been tendered to America by the Danish 
Church, through the American Minister at London — 
Mr. J ohn Adams — filial preferences naturally inclined 
the American Church to obtain it from the west side 
of the channel." * Thus it is repeated, in many forms 
of expression, that the Church of Denmark offered to 
give the apostolical succession to the United States. 
What must be his thankfulness for his escape, when 
the modern High-churchman learns that the Church 
of Denmark had no " apostolical succession " to give 
away, for she had none for herself! 

Dr. Hook, in his Preface to the Life of Bishop Ho- 
bart, says: w It has of late years been ascertained that 
while the Episcopal succession has certainly been pre- 
served in the Church of Sweden, it has been lost in the 
Church of Denmark, whose episcopacy is only nominal." f 
It is not easy to determine what Dr. Hook means by a 
" nominal episcopacy." If he means that there were cer- 
tain ecclesiastical officers in Denmark who are called 
bishops, without making the slightest pretensions to, 
or possessing the slightest respect for, the " apostolical 
succession," he is undoubtedly correct. The sources 
of information are abundant, testifying to the fact that 
the episcopacy of Denmark, if derived at all, was ob- 
tained from the Lutheran Church of Germany, and 
therefore the " orders " of the Danish Church are no 



* Genius of the Church, p. 147. f Preface to Early Life and Pro- 
fessional Years of Bishop Hobart. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 149 



better, no worse, than those of the Lutheran Church 
of Prussia. As this question had assumed such over- 
whelming importance in the mind of the High-church- 
men, it is not a little remarkable that Dr. White and 
his co-laborers did not make themselves acquainted 
with the history of the Church whose "liberal and 
brotherly proposition" might have brought disaster 
to the helpless Americans. It was a clear case of an- 
other Trojan horse presenting himself at the gates of 
Troy. In this case, however, a back gate seems to 
have been opened, and the citadel of antiquity was 
stormed by combining Canterbury, the King, and the 
Lords and Commons of Parliament, in a grand effort 
to create a Church of Christ in the United States. If 
Dr. White and Dr. Seabury had been inclosed in the 
Trojan horse of Denmark, who could foretell the re- 
sults? 

"An Account of Denmark as it was in 1692" was 
written by an envoy of William III. to the Danish 
kingdom. In that work the author says: "There are 
six superintendents in Denmark, who take it very 
kindly to be called bishops, and my lord, viz.: one in 
Zealand, one in Funen, and four in Jutland; there are 
also four in Norway. These have no temporalities, 
keep no ecclesiastical courts, have no cathedrals, with 
prebends, canons, deans, sub-deans, etc., but are only 
primi inter pares; having the rank above the clergy of 
their province, and the inspection into their doctrine 
and manners."* 

This is the species of episcopacy owned by all the 
reformed Churches of Europe as scriptural, and by 
most of them accepted and practiced. So far as the 
^Account of Denmark, p. 161. 



150 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



organization of the Danish episcopate is concerned, it 
is in full accord with that of the early Church, as we 
shall endeavor to show hereafter. That it is in abso- 
lute subordination to the State is evident. The "roy- 
al law of Denmark" says: "The King shall have an 
absolute authority in the affairs of the Church and all 
religious assemblies. In a word, he shall enjoy all 
the rights and prerogatives which an hereditary, ab- 
solute, or despotic king can enjoy." * Thus it appears 
that the Church of Denmark had little or nothing to 
do with the matter of proposing to ordain the young 
American candidates. The King thought that the 
American people were cut off from the fountains of 
grace, and were in distress, and he kindly tendered 
the good offices of his Church. The clergy were con- 
sulted — if at all — only as a matter of courtesy, for the 
word of the King was supreme. "A copy of the Count 
de Rosencrone's letter was sent, by order of Congress, 
to the executive authority in each of the States, and 
at this convention (1785) it was laid before the House 
in a communication sent to it from the Governor of 
Virginia." f " The proceeding in Denmark," says Dr. 
White, "was made known to the American Govern- 
ment by Mr. Adams, a copy of whose letter to the 
President of Congress was sent to the author by the 
then Supreme Council of Pennsylvania. " X Thus it ap- 
pears that the ordination of a young man to the min- 
istry in London becomes a question that sets embassa- 
dors to work. Correspondence with foreign countries 
interests the King of the generous Danes, occasions 
a letter of an embassador to Congress; and this letter, 

* Account of Denmark, p. 188. f Protestant Episcopal Church 
in Virginia, p. 182. i Memoirs, p. 18. 



A Defease of Our Methodist Fathers: 



151 



by Congressional authority, is sent to the Governors 
of thirteen States with all the solemnity of a profound 
question involving the well-being of the nation! Tru- 
ly may we adopt the language of Dr. McYickar, de- 
scribing the infantile feebleness of Episcopalianism 
at this crisis; "Other denominations had from the 
first been taught to depend upon themselves. The 
Episcopal Church was like a child that had never 
walked, and when cut loose from its leading-strings 
its first steps were necessarily in feebleness and fear." * 
ISotwithstanding such helpers as kings, theological fac- 
ulties, embassadors, Presidents of Congress, Governors 
of States, and supreme councils, it staggered and fell 
helpless to the floor, from which it was raised at last 
by an Act of Parliament and sundry acts of compli- 
ance with the demands of "the cross old gentleman at 
Canterbury," which remain to be examined in a future 
chapter. 



-Life of Hobart, p. 92. 



Republican Sentiment in the Colonies— Episcopal Influence on the 
wane— First Methodist Sermon in Virginia— Devereaux Jarratt 
—An early Methodist— No Ordinances— Children Unbaptized, 
People without the Lord's Supper— Popular Appeals to Asbury 
and the Preachers— Bishop Hobart's Biographer— Description of 
the Religious Condition of the Colonies— History of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in Virginia, by Dr. Hawks— Biographers of 
Wesley, Whitehead, and Hampson — Prejudiced Writers— Unre- 
liable Parties Quoted by the Enemies of Methodism— Coke and 
Moore's Life of W T esley— Dr. Hawks the chief authority for Epis- 
copal Writers— Some Statements Examined— Unconscious Hu- 
mor— Asbury and the Ordinance Question— The Compromise- 
Appeal to Mr. Wesley. 



THE failure to obtain a resident bishop in Amer- 
ica was undoubtedly due to the growth of repub- 
lican sentiments in the colonies. The tyranny of the 
Government, which taxed the people and yet denied 
them representation in the Legislature of the king- 
dom, was growing more and more manifest. It was 
not the amount of the taxation, it was the principle, 
that raised the spirit of rebellion among the colonists. 
The British Parliament was the mere creature of the 
Monarch. It was not a matter of reproach to the 
party in power, but it was rather a subject of boasting 
that the King could purchase a majority of the mem- 
bers whenever it suited him to do so. Bribery was 
openly practiced. The King having determined to 
suppress the spirit of resistance in the colonies, bent 
all the energies of the empire to that end. 




(152) 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



153 



Far-seeing men knew that the opening of the war 
between the mother country and the colonies was the 
death-knell to British dominion in America; but the 
good-humored Prime-minister respected nothing bat 
the grim determination of his master, and the war was 
pushed to extremities. The American people could 
never have been conquered. They were free from 
their birth. Their allegiance to a throne three thou- 
sand miles away was a matter of sentiment and not of 
interest or principle. When the King exhibited a 
spirit of fierce, unrelenting hostility, the colonists be- 
came, in prosperity and adversity alike, the indomita- 
ble foes of monarchy. Every thing that bore the 
badge or wore the insignia of kingly authority be- 
came hateful to the people. The division of families 
into Whig and Tory parties tended more and more to 
embitter and prolong the strife. Men who suffered 
and toiled and waited, as did the men of Yalley Forge 
in the memorable winter of 1780, were never born to 
wear the badge of slavery. 

As the republican spirit began to manifest itself, the 
Episcopal clergymen of Virginia became more and 
more unpopular. Blinded by the self-delusion which 
so often precedes the overthow of human institutions, 
the clergy felt themselves secure from the enmity of 
the people because they were installed in parishes 
whose glebes formed a life-estate for their possessors. 
But as the spirit of antagonism to the mother coun- 
try became more marked, these clergymen declared 
themselves on the side of Great Britain. A few hon- 
orable exceptions — perhaps seven or eight, according 
to the estimate of Dr. Hawks * — could not redeem a 



* Protestant Episcopal Church in Virginia,, p. 133. 



Hie High-churcJimaii Disarmed: 



hundred clergymen froin the political hatred which 
they had invited by their own follies. 

The first sermon preached by a Methodist in Vir- 
ginia was in 1772.* Among the clergymen of the 
colony there were only two that gave any encourage- 
ment to Robert Williams and his co-laborers in Meth- 
odism. These were Devereaux Jarrett and Archibald 
McRoberts. The latter left the Episcopal Church 
during the war and became a Presbyterian ; f the for- 
mer was a truly pious man, whose zeal for the cause 
of Christ brought upon him the energetic opposition 
of his brethren. " He was looked upon with an evil 
eye by the Established clergy," says Dr. Bennett. . 
"He had but little intercourse with them, though he 
occasionally attended their conventions. At one held 
in Williamsburg in 1774, he was treated so unkindly 
and heard the doctrine of Christianity so ridiculed, 
that he determined to attend no more. He kept this 
resolution until 1785, when he was present at one in 
Richmond; but he was so coldly received that he re- 
mained only a few hours, and then rode home." J 

At the commencement of the war in 1776, nine 
Methodist preachers were traveling in Virginia, There 
were then between ninety and one hundred Episcopal 
clergymen, and among these two men who gave their 
countenance to the labors of the itinerant preachers. 
Within a period of less than five years "the people 
called Methodists" had grown to a membership of 
more than four thousand in the colony. For this 
large number of converted men and women there was 
not a minister of the gospel authorized to administer 



" Bennett's Memorials of Methodism in Virginia, p. 51. flbid., 
p. 59. t Ibid., pp. 62, 63. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 155 



the sacraments! Hundreds of persons, who had never 
been baptized by any formula or mode, sought admis- 
sion to the Methodist societies, and the preachers who 
had been the means of their conversion were unable 
to baptize them! Baptist and Presbyterian ministers, 
in no respect the superiors of the Methodist pastors, 
were organizing churches, baptizing their converts, 
and administering the Lord's Supper without let or 
hinderance, since the partial triumph of Mr. J efferson 
and his party in the Legislature of 1776. The Epis- 
copal clergy had for the most part abandoned their 
homes and fled from the republican sentiment which 
ruled the colony. Among those who remained, Mr. 
Jarratt was the only clergyman who offered to admin- 
ister the ordinances for the Methodists. The liturgy 
of the Episcopalians required the prayer for King 
George; and as those of the clergy who professed even 
the form of godliness were royalists, and would not 
omit the prayer, there was no possibility of even an 
occasional church- service. 

The author of the biography of Bishop Hobart has 
given a graphic picture of the state of affairs, and the 
causes conducing to it, at the time of the organiza- 
tion of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America. 
Speaking of the Episcopal Church, he says: "At the 
North, in a few of the larger cities — Philadelphia, 
New York, Newport, and Boston — congregations had 
by this time" (the commencement of the Revolution- 
ary War), "arisen with means sufficient to support 
their own clergy; but beyond these towns all were 
missionaries, paid and supported either wholly or in 
part from abroad. The evils of such a condition were 
obvious. At the South legal Establishment, and at 



156 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



the North foreign funds, made the clergy independent 
of the laity, and the laity unconcerned about the 
Church. From the want of an episcopate there was 
no spiritual jurisdiction either confer orders, ad- 
minister confirmation, or enforce discipline. The 
Church had, consequently, neither point of union nor 
power of increase; its ministers were chiefly foreign- 
ers, and therefore alien to the feelings of the people; 
while of such as went for orders it was estimated that 
one-fifth perished amid the perils of the journey. 

"To a Church thus constituted (if Church it might 
be termed), the consequences of the Revolution were 
for a time fatal. Identified by popular prejudice with 
the royal government, it fell in public opinion with 
it. In Virginia and Maryland, where the Church had 
been strongest— numbering in the former alone above 
one hundred clergymen — the popular fury was imme- 
diately directed against it as the stronghold of the 
royal party. The clergy were driven from their cures, 
the churches shut up or sold, and in defiance of law, 
the glebe lands eventually declared forfeited. In the 
North an equal fate awaited — the support of the mis- 
sionaries being withdrawn, they too were soon forced 
to follow; the churches closed and the congregations 
scattered. So utter, in short, was this dispersion that 
for some years (to give an individual illustration) 
the present Bishop of Pennsylvania was the sole rem- 
nant of the clergy in the whole of that province. 
The war of the Revolution may therefore in truth be 
said to have desolated the Church, for out of that 
struggle it came forth with deserted temples, broken 
altars, and alienated property; deprived of its ablest 
clergy by death or exile, destitute of the means of 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 157 



ordaining others, and laboring under the popular odi- 
um of attachment to monarchical principles and a for- 
eign government, and that government the very one 
from whose thralldom the country had just freed it- 
self. Never, certainly, was any portion of the Chris- 
tian Church in a state of greater depression, and what 
with internal weakness and external hostility, there 
seemed to be but little chance of its ever rising out of 
it."* 

"To add to these accumulated sorrows, the few 
churches that remained had no tie of brotherhood 
among themselves; the external bond being removed, 
they fell apart like a rope of sand; there was neither 
union nor government nor strength; each stood in its 
own state of helpless independency, fast tending — to 
use the expressive language of Burke — toward 'the 
dust and powder of individuality.' In this state of 
destitution, to crown all other evils, the anarchy of 
heresy began to creep in among them. One of the 
most influential churches in Boston, and the oldest in 
the Northern States — tracing back to the time of 
Charles II. — openly professed Unitarianism, and new- 
modeled its liturgy accordingly. Churchmen in South 
Carolina were for adopting a nominal episcopacy, the 
Legislature of Maryland entertained the plan of them- 
selves appointing ordainers, and Socinian principles 
were avowed by some among the members of the 
Church, and suspected among many." f 

That the colony of Maryland had established the 
Episcopal form of worship in 1692 is evident, but it 
does not appear that the majority of the colonists pre- 
ferred at any time the Church of their rulers. When 
* Memoir of Bishop Hobart, p. 78. f Ibid., p. 80. 



153 



The High -churchman Disarmed: 



a clergyman wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury 
about tlie year 1675, complaining that there was no 
Established ministry in the colony, the Privy Coun- 
cil inquired the reason why. To this inquiry Lord 
Baltimore replied "that all forms of Christian faith 
were tolerated, and every denomination supported its 
own ministers; that the Non-conformists outnumbered 
Churchmen and Eomanists together by about three 
to one; and to compel them to support ministers not 
of their own faith would be a burden at once unjust 
and hard to impose." * 

If the Romanists and Churchmen amounted to only 
one-third of the population in 1675, it is not probable 
that the Churchmen formed a greater proportion than 
one-fifth or, at most, one-fourth of the colonists in 
1692. Neverthless, the Assembly "divided the ten 
counties into parishes, and imposed a tax of forty 
pounds of tobacco per poll on all taxables for the pur- 
pose of building the churches and maintaining the 
clergy." In 1702 a toleration clause was added ex- 
empting dissenters and Quakers from penalties and 
disabilities, and permitting the use of separate meet- 
ing-houses, "provided that they paid their forty 
pounds per poll to support the Established Church." 
"We may now place side by side," says Mr. Browne, 
"the three tolerations of Maryland. The toleration 
of the Proprietaries lasted fifty years, and under it all 
believers in Christ were equal before the law, and 
all support to churches or ministers was voluntary; 
the Puritan toleration lasted six years, and includ- 
ed all but papists, prelatists, and those who held 
objectionable doctrines; the Anglican toleration lasted 
* Browne's History of Maryland, p. 129. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



159 



eighty years, and had glebes and churches for the Es- 
tablishment, connivance for dissenters, the penal laws 
for Catholics, and for all the forty per poll." - 

There was nothing in the history of the Episcopalians 
of Maryland to render their Church system more popu- 
ular than it had proved to be in Virginia. The admis- 
sion of persons of all creeds and conditions rendered the 
colony a more desirable refuge for those who longed for 
religious freedom; but the taxation imposed upon all 
for the benefit of one denomination could not fail to 
produce a state of irritation which only needed the de- 
liverance from monarchical government to show itself. 
Aristocratic institutions could never stand before the 
ballot-box in America. 

In the " History of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
in Virginia," there is an attempt at a truthful state- 
ment of the relations existing between the early Meth- 
odists and the Episcopalians at the time of the organ- 
ization of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1784. 
It is not necessary to question the integrity of the 
historian, but it is impossible to read his narrative 
without discerning the spirit of a man so partial to 
his own cause and Church that he cannot be relied 
upon when the truth of history demands an impeach- 
ment of the sect to which he belongs. Impartiality 
is not expected, perhaps it cannot be observed. But 

* Browne's History of Maryland, p. 185. This excellent writer 
is betrayed into a singular anachronism. He says, p. 185: "Their 
second act was to make the Protestant Episcopal Church the Estab- 
lished Church of the province." The Protestant Episcopal Church 
appears first in history in 1784, when the Episcopalians of Virginia 
were incorporated by the Legislature, under that name. Two years 
afterward the act of incorporation was repealed, and the following year 
the name was given to the Episcopal Church in the United States 



160 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



the lapse of fifty years had furnished a variety of au- 
thorities which Dr. Hawks might have consulted if he 
had desired to do so. Richard Watson had exposed 
the unfairness of Robert Southey in his "Life of 
Wesley," and his replies to the assaults of the ene- 
mies of Methodism were sufficiently satisfactory to 
those who wished to know the truth. Yet we find Dr. 
Hawks, some years after the publication of the work 
of Watson, quoting the errors and misstatements of 
Whitehead and Hampson. 

The amount of credit to be attached to the work of 
Mr. Hampson will appear from a plain statement of 
the facts. John Hampson, sr., and John Hampson, jr., 
were among those who were greatly offended at the 
action of Mr. Wesley in omitting their names from 
the catalogue of the Legal Hundred. If one hundred 
names had to be selected from twice that number, it is 
evident that some persons must be offended, because 
of their inordinate self-esteem. The Messrs. Hamp- 
son were not chosen by Mr. Wesley, and they desert- 
ed him and the Conference in 1784.* John Hamp- 
son, jr., sought and obtained ordination from the Es- 
tablished Church, while his father became an Inde- 
pendent minister. They had the right to do this, but 
there was no legal or moral right that authorized Mr. 
John Hampson, jr., to become the biographer of Mr. 
Wesley. He had the temerity to attempt the task, and 
had not the wisdom to conceal his wounded vanity 
and personal grievance. "The younger Mr. Hamp- 
son," says the biographer of Charles Wesley, "ob- 
tained episcopal ordination and the living of Sunder- 
land. He wrote a Life of Mr. Wesley, which he put 
* Chronological History of the Methodists, by Wm. Myles, p. 158. 



A Defense of Our Methodic Fathers. 161 



to press with indecent haste, while the remains of 
that venerable man were scarcely cold in his grave; 
and spoke of the deceased— to whom he was indebted 
for his education, and therefore for his preferment— 
in a manner that reflected little credit upon his heart. 
His book is a sort of quiver, from which the detract- 
ors of Mr. Wesley generally select their arrows."* 

Dr. Hawks resorts to this quiver, and uses some of 
the arrows with the air of one who seems to be uncon- 
scious of appealing to suspicious or disputed sources 
of information. To the book of Dr. Whitehead also 
he appeals, and endeavors to qualify, if not to contra- 
dict, the statements of Messrs. Coke and Moore, by 
the assertion of Dr. Whitehead. Mr. Wesley left his 
papers in charge of three persons— Dr. Coke, Mr. 
Moore, and Dr. Whitehead. 

The connection of Dr. AVhitehead with the trust de- 
volved by the will of Mr. Wesley is a story that does 
no credit to the biographer whose work Dr. Hawks 
has quoted. When the three executors— Coke, Moore, 
and Whitehead— met, in 1791, soon after the death of 
Mr. Wesley, it was resolved to publish a biography 
which would counteract the malicious statements of 
Mr. Hampson. Coke and Moore were too busily en- 
gaged in ministerial labors to permit them to under- 
take the task, and it was agreed to leave the work of 
preparing the volume to Dr. Whitehead. "To him," 
says Etheridge, "the MSS. were accordingly confided. 
And as it could not be expected that a professional 
man should devote himself gratuitously to the per- 
formance of such a work, Dr. Whitehead proposed to 
Mr. Bogers, the superintendent of the London Cir- 
* Memoir of Charles Wesley, by Thomas Jackson, p. 414. 



162 



The Hig It-church man Disarmed: 



cuit, that the author of the biography should be paid 
one hundred pounds for his trouble and loss of time. 
The executors and the printing committee thereupon 
agreed to give him one hundred guineas. This ar- 
rangement was concluded about a week before the 
Conference met, and was confirmed by that body, 
though not without some misgiving. Many of the 
preachers had but little confidence in Dr. Whitehead, 
and his 'antecedents' appear to have justified that 
uncertainty. A Methodist preacher, a Quaker, a 
Churchman, and a Methodist again by turns, his ver- 
satility of disposition had by no means edified them 
or others. They nevertheless concurred in the ap- 
pointment, with the stipulation that Mr. Moore should 
examine the whole of Mr. Wesley's papers before 
their contents were published. Here followed a vari- 
ety of circumlocutions on the part of Dr. Whitehead. 
A hundred guineas for a work which, were he to pub- 
lish it on his own account, might yield him two thou- 
sand, appeared, on reflection, to be too trifling a re- 
turn; and he announced his intention to write the book 
for himself, or, if published at the Conference office, 
on the condition of his receiving one-half of the 
profits, the copyright remaining his own. The book 
committee declined to sanction this change, but for 
the sake of peace offered to make his fee two hun- 
dred guineas. This proffer was on his side declined. 
An arbitration was then proposed; three friends on 
each part. On meeting, the Doctor's representatives 
laid it down as a basis that the copyright must be his 
own. The three preachers decidedly refused, and the 
meeting at once dissolved. The ministers' committee 
then renewed an offer formerly made, that the author 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 163 



should have half of the profits of the work for two 
years, provided the work should be read by them in 
manuscript and approved. Dr. Whitehead replied 
that he would not submit his writings to any person 
whatever. Every form of negotiation being thus un- 
fruitful, the committee had no other alternative than 
that of requesting the other two legatees of the Wes- 
ley MSS. to undertake jointly the preparation of a 
memoir to be published at the Book-room for the 
benefit of the Connection* To this Dr. Coke, and 
Mr. Moore — pressed as they were by peculiar duties — 
felt constrained to accede, and accordingly they ad- 
dressed themselves to their task. But wishing, of 
course, to avail themselves of the papers bearing on 
the history they were to compose, they had the morti- 
fication — on his own account as well as their own — to 
find that Dr. Whitehead, to whom as one of the trust- 
ees, and as the intended author of the biography, 
they had been confided, refused altogether to give 
them up. As co-trustees they had as great a right to 
the custody of the MSS. as himself, and might have 
soon made good their claim in law; but they were 
weary of altercation, and left the case to be adjudged 
at the tribunal of conscience." f 

Under these circumstances of embarrassment and 
mortification Messrs. Coke and Moore prepared their 
"Life of Wesley." To expect this work to be all that 
was desired as a memorial of the founder of Method- 
ism, would be manifestly unjust to all parties. That 
some errors or imperfect statements should be found 
in the first edition was inevitable. But the work of 

* Smith's History of Methodism, vol. ii., p. 215. f Etheridge's Life 
of Coke, p. 287. 



164 



The High-el lurchmctn Disarmed: 



Dr. Whitehead fully justified the expectations of those 
who regarded hiro. as morally disqualified for the task. 
A bitter, uncompromising hostility to Dr. Coke ap- 
pears in season and out of season in Whitehead's 
work. He makes no attempt to conceal his animosity 
to those who have interfered with his mercenary plans. 
The false statements of this writer have been echoed 
by High-churchmen in England and America, until 
the task of exposing and refuting them has been suc- 
cessfully undertaken by a score of respectable writers. 
But the latest product of High-church literature 
quotes the versatile Methodist Church-of-England 
Quaker with as much zest and as great an air of 
triumph as if these absurdities had never been ex- 
posed to the condemnation of honest men of all par- 
ties* 

The Life of Wesley, by Coke and Moore, written 
without access to the papers and manuscripts of Mr. 
Wesley, and having only the personal knowledge of 
the authors as the material for the book, was, never- 
theless, a remarkable success. In the short space of 
two months the book cleared seventeen hundred 
pounds, or nearly eight thousand five hundred dol- 
lars.f 

As the work of Dr. Hawks has been made the ar- 
mory from which a section of the adversaries of Meth- 
odism have drawn their implements of warfare, the 
thorough examination of his statements will be a com- 
petent reply to those who have repeated his errors 
without adding any thing of their own. The contro- 
versy which assumed a serious phase related to the 

* See Beardsley's Life of Seabury, passim, f Etheridge's Life of 
Coke, p. 294. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 165 



administration of the ordinances by the Methodist 
preachers. When did this controversy begin? Was 
there a reasonable ground for the popular discontent? 
To what extent did the Episcopal clergymen endeavor 
to meet the religious wants of those people whom Dr. 
Hawks calls "seceders from the Episcopal Church?" 

There is a vein of unconscious humor in the lan- 
guage of Dr. Hawks which the critical reader will ap- 
preciate at its full value. Speaking of the year 1777, 
he says that "the sacraments were no longer admin- 
istered in many of the parishes, and this condition of 
affairs led to an effort on the part of the Methodists 
to remedy the evil by an irregular ordination of minis- 
ters among themselves." * This is a grave, sober truth . 
The Methodists who desired the ordinances numbered 
eighteen preachers and nearly four thousand commu- 
nicants.f Dr. Hawks proceeds to say that "some of 
the clergy of the Church advised them against the 
measure, but in vain." The " some" who did this was 
one man — Kev. Devereaux Jarratt — the good brother 
who was coolly received at the Episcopal Convention of 
1785 because of his connection with the Methodists. 
Furthermore, it is stated that Francis Asbury, being 
opposed to the irregular method of obtaining an or- 
dained ministry, "went so far as to write to some of 
the clergy of the Establishment, reproving them for 
not having checked, in its incipient stage, this ap- 
proach to disorder." £ Here, again, the "some" is 
one man — the Eev. Devereaux Jarratt. Finally, "to 
prevent as far as possible a renewal of the complaint 

* Protestant Episcopal Church in Virginia, p. 148. f Bennett's 
Memorials, pp. 109, 112. % Protestant Episcopal Church in Virgin- 
ia, p. 148. 



166 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



of the want of the sacraments, some, at least, of the 
Episcopal clergy traveled over large circuits for the 
purpose of baptizing the children of Methodists and 
administering the eucharist; and continued to do so 
until the final separation of the Methodists from the 
Church, without desiring or receiving for the service 
the smallest compensation."* This generosity and 
self-denial, manifested by some of the clergy of the 
Establishment," all centered in one man— the Rev. 
Devereaux Jarratt, the quasi Methodist preacher. For 
this act of Christian fellowship he was laughed at, 
censured, and shunned at the time; but in more recent 
years the fact is remembered to his credit, and to the 
shame and confusion of all those unreasonable Meth- 
odists who would not let the Rev. Mr. Jarratt do duty 
for all the Episcopal churches and clergymen of Vir- 
ginia ! This specimen of unconscious humor enlivens 
the pages of Dr. Hawks, and makes a very difficult 
theme somewhat entertaining. The affection which 
certain persons in modern times have manifested for 
Methodists, if not for Methodism, if it had been felt 
and exhibited a hundred years ago, would have made 
the writing of history a more pleasant employment. 
But "the Church" and "the clergy" of 1784 had no 
use for the Methodists except to make sport of them. 

" It will hardly be imputed to the clergy as a crime 
that, in the situation to which they found themselves 
reduced, many should be willing to abandon the coun- 
try entirely." f Thus does Dr. Hawks excuse the de- 
linquency of men who professed to be the servants of 
God and the duly authorized embassadors for Christ 
in the colony. The people refused to be taxed for the 
* Protestant Episcopal Church in Virginia, p. 149. f Ibid., p. 148. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 167 



maintenance of men who proved themselves to be 
hirelings and not shepherds of the flock. A measure 
for the establishment of absolute religious equality 
among all denominations gave the final blow to " the 
clergy." Their royalist principles they did not con- 
ceal, but boasted of them. One of the Episcopal cler- 
gymen in New York had the hardihood to insult Gen- 
eral Washington in the face of a congregation on the 
Sabbath-day in 1776. The General had. sent word to 
Mr. Inglis, the rector of the parish, that "he expected 
to be at church on a given Sabbath, and should be 
glad if the violent prayers for the King and royal 
family were omitted on that occasion." Mr. Inglis 
received the message, but paid no attention to it, re- 
peating the prayers as formerly. At the close of the 
war this clergyman went to Nova Scotia, and was aft- 
erward made a bishop in that province.* 

It is by no means difficult to understand why it was 
that men of this class should abandon the country; 
but to justify them in doing so is to renounce in their 
behalf the clerical character they professed, or to con- 
fess that they were ill-treated by their Virginia pa- 
rishioners. In any event, the statement of Dr. Hawks 
is true, that " the sacraments were no longer adminis- 
tered in many of the parishes, and this condition of 
affairs led to an effort on the part of the Methodists 
to remedy the evil by an irregular ordination of min- 
isters among themselves." The flight of the Episco- 
pal ministers was one of the causes which prompted 
the action of the Methodists, but it was only one of 
the causes. Long before the war began, or before there 
was any prospect of a war with the mother country, the 
*Wakeley's Lost Chapters of American Methodism, p. 97, 



168 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



agitation of the question concerning the sacraments 
gave trouble to the itinerant preachers. In the North- 
ern colonies there were only a few clergymen, and 
these were missionaries employed by the Society for 
the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. 
They were High-churchmen almost to a man. With 
the Methodists they would have no sort of affiliation. 
People who attended their services were admitted to 
the communion, but they did not go out of their way 
to administer the ordinance to any one. Infant chil- 
dren were baptized if presented to the missionaries, 
but there were very few among the Methodists who 
regarded the clergy as spiritual leaders at whose hands 
these holy rites could be received with a good con- 
science. 

Francis Asbury had been in America only thirteen 
months before he was compelled to consider this ques- 
tion. Under date of December 23, 1772, he gives an 
account of a quarterly meeting which he attended in 
Maryland.'- The fifth question recorded in this meet- 
ing was, "Will the people be contented without our 
administering the sacraments? " One of the preach- 
ers — John King — refused to take any position in the 
matter. Robert Strawbridge, the pioneer preacher in 
Maryland, and also in America^ was decidedly in favor 
ui yielding to the wishes of the people. The embar- 
rassment of the case was evident. One of the preach- 
ers, whom Mr. Asbury calls "Mr. B.," had set the ex- 
ample, and such were the force of public opinion and 
the necessities of the case that Mr. Asbury says, "I 

*Asbury's Journal, vol. i., p. 38; Bennett's Memorials, p. 110. 
fConsult McTyeire's History of Methodism ; Lost Chapters, Wake- 
ley; etc. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 169 



was obliged to connive at some things for the sake of 
peace." These facts were reported to Mr. Wesley, 
and he sent Messrs. Kan kin and Shadford to America 
with authority to represent his views and feelings in 
the matter.* They arrived in June, 1773, and in the 
following month a conference of the preachers was 
held in Philadelphia. 

It is probable, therefore, that the agitation of this 
question led to the re enforcement of the preachers in 
America, and to the beginning of the Annual Confer- 
ences, which assemblies have continued until this day. 
In this Conference it was resolved that the authority 
of Mr. Wesley extended to America, and that the dis- 
cipline prevailing in England ought to govern in 
America also. The consequence was that the Confer- 
ence determined to refrain from the exercise of rights 
to which they felt themselves entitled according to the 
Scriptures. But the Conference was continually ad- 
mitting new members. The field of operations was 
enlarging. As a question of expediency simply, it 
was difficult to cause good men to see the need of 
obeying a practice in the colonies which worked many 
hardships in England, and threatened, destruction to 
the work in America. It was impossible to settle the 
question. It reappeared in 1774 and 1775. At every 
Conference arguments, explanations, debates, and en- 
treaties were employed to preserve the "order" which 
many advocated only because it was agreeable to Mr. 
Wesley. 

But there were many who could not fail to see that 
Mr. Wesley was not consistent with himself in this 
matter. In 1746 he had given up the doctrine of apos- 
* Etheridge's Life of Coke, p. 12-3. 



170 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



tolical succession. Nine years later, in 1755, in a let- 
ter to Eev. Mr. Walker, of Truro, after recounting the 
arguments in favor of a separation from the Church 
of England, Mr. Wesley says: " I will freely acknowl- 
edge that I cannot answer these arguments to my own 
satisfaction. So that my conclusion — which I cannot 
yet give up — that it is lawful to continue in the 
Church, stands, I know not how, almost without any 
premises that are to bear its weight"* If he chose 
to act from mere sentiment, without a logical reason 
to sustain his action, it is not surprising that his fol- 
lowers in America should adopt a course which to 
them was consistent and logical. The shadowy thing 
known as "the Church" in the colonies was entitled to 
no consideration whatever. It had no moral influence, 
no religious power, except in rare instances of clerical 
fidelity and usefulness. 

Asbary led the ranks of the protestants against the 
new system of ordaining ministers, and the matter 
was passed by from year to year until it became in 
Virginia a "burning question." The unfortunate 
pamphlet on the American war, written by Mr. Wes- 
ley, had created a great deal of prejudice against the 
Methodist preachers. Asbury was an Englishman. 
The American brethren spoke and wrote of Wesley 
with great tenderness and love, notwithstanding his 
bitter opposition to "the rebellion." But there were 
many persons who were always ready to seize upon 
any charge that would make Methodism unpopular. 
The consequence was that Mr. Asbury was suspected; 
and being unwilling to take the oath prescribed in 
Maryland, he retired to Delaware, on th e 10th of 
* Letter to Walker: Wesley's Works, vol. xiii., p. 195. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 171 



March, 1778, and found an asylum at the house of a 
Mr. White. He remained there about seven weeks, 
and found a great deal of confusion and distress 
among the people when he returned to his old home. 

Meantime the preachers and people in Virginia had 
been left to their own guidance in ecclesiastical affairs. 
Seeing the necessity of the times, they had resolved 
upon a system which would provide the sacraments 
for the people. A committee was appointed, the re- 
quirements for ordination determined, and the work 
began in good earnest. Dr. Hawks says: "In 1778 a 
considerable number of the lay preachers earnestly 
importuned Mr. Asbury, a prominent preacher among 
the Methodists, to take proper measures that the peo- 
ple might enjoy the privileges of all other Churches, 
and no longer be deprived of the Christian sacra- 
ments."* The historian has sadly confused the dates 
of these events. The Virginia preachers knew well 
enough that Mr. Asbury had no power to obtain or to 
prepare any measures for the purpose. Every man 
among them stood upon the same footing. None were 
ordained, and any one of them was as well qualified 
to institute a ministry as Mr. Asbury himself, so far 
as ecclesiastical law was concerned. 

" Upon the refusal of Mr. Asbury to cooperate with 
them in their plan of ordination, a majority of the 
preachers withdrew from all connection with him and 
Mr. Wesley, "t This statement is not correct. The 
Conference having solemnly considered and debated 
the subject thoroughly, adopted their plan, and re- 
turned to their duties on their respective circuits. 
The intellig ence was conveyed to Mr. Asbury, and it 
-Protestant Episcopal Church, p. 148. f Ibid 



172 



displeased him, as a matter of course. But this ac- 
tion of the Virginia preachers did not take place in 
1778, but at the Conference of 1779. On Wednesday, 
the 28th of April, 1779, Asbury writes: "As we had 
great reason to fear that our brethren to the south- 
ward were in danger of separating from us, we wrote 
them a soft, healing epistle." On the 3d of May he 
wrote to John Dickins, Philip Gatch, Edward Drom- 
goole, and William Glendenning, "urging them, if 
possible, to prevent a separation among the preachers 
in the South— that is, Virginia and North Carolina; 
and I entertain great hopes," he says, "that the 
breach will be healed; if not, the consequences may 
be bad." On the 30th of May he received the Min- 
utes of the Virginia Conference, and called the action 
of those brethren " a lame separation from the Epis- 
copal Church that will last about one year." The dif- 
ficulty of the case comes severely home to him, how- 
ever, as he looks around and sees the young converts 
given up to the active solicitations of persons who are 
endeavoring to proselyte them. Under date of July 
19, 1779, he says: "A good work is begun, and I fear 
that division is begun also. But what is to be done? 
Must we instrumentally get people convinced, and let 
papists take them from us? No; we will, we must 
oppose ! If the people lose their souls, how shall we 
answer it before God?" Everywhere souls were re- 
claimed; and where the song of the drunkard and the 
voice of the brawler had prevailed, now the songs of 
Zion were sung, and a great reformation was manifest 
to all. Still, he adhered to "order." He writes on 
Monday, July 26, to " our dissenting brethren in Vir- 
ginia, hoping to reclaim them." 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



173 



The mind of Asbury was greatly exercised upon the 
subject of ministerial orders. He writes in his diary, 
after reading "Comber on Ordination," as follows: 
"I believe the Episcopal mode of ordination to be 
more proper than that of the Presbyterians; but I 
wish there were primitive qualifications in all who 
handle sacred things/' April 1, 1780, he writes: "I 
received a satisfactory letter from William Moore; he 
hopes a reconciliation will take place in Virginia, if 
healing measures are adopted." 

Up to this time, therefore, although the Virginia 
preachers had instituted a new order of things, and 
had accomplished in point of fact that which Dr. Will- 
iam White advised the Episcopalians to do about the 
same time, yet they did not "withdraw from all con- 
nection with Mr. Asbury and Mr. Wesley." There 
was no schism accomplished or designed. The point 
of difference was not one of principle but of expedi- 
ency only. The Northern Conference met on April 
25, 1780, and received a letter from the Virginia breth- 
ren. At first it was concluded to renounce them, but 
Asbury interposed with " conditions of union." These 
conditions provided that they should ordain no more; 
that they should come no farther north than Hanover 
Circuit; delegates must be admitted in their Confer- 
ence from the Northern; that "they should not pre- 
sume to administer the ordinances where there is a 
decent Episcopal minister;" and finally, "to have a 
union Conference." These terms could not be agreed 
upon, and at last Asbury offered the suggestion "to 
propose a suspension of the ordinances for one year, 
and so cancel all our grievances and be one." This 
was agreed to by the representatives of the Southern 



174 The High -churchman Disarmed: 



Conference, and Francis Asbury and Freeborn Gar- 
rettson were appointed to attend a meeting of the 
Virginia Conference, " to bring about peace and union." 

In the narrative of Dr. Hawks it is stated that "Mr. 
Asbury, having obtained his liberty, visited Virginia, 
and by all the address in his power, with indefatiga- 
ble labor and attention, succeeded at length in bring- 
ing back the seceders one after another, and by a vote 
of one of the Conferences the ordination was declared 
invalid, and union was restored." The inaccuracy of 
this statement will be perceived as we proceed in the 
true history of the controversy, as given by the prin- 
cipal actors in those scenes 

Asbury, Garrettson, and Watters appeared before 
the Virginia Conference on Tuesday, May 9, 1780. 
Mr. Wesley's thoughts concerning separation were 
read. They were familiar to the hearers, and could 
not meet the conditions surrounding the American 
preachers. Mr. Asbury presented his case with all 
the skill that he possessed, and retired, leaving the 
Conference to their deliberations. "After an hour's 
conference," says Asbury, "we were called to receive 
their answer, which was, they could not submit to the 
terms of union. I then prepared to leave the house, 
to go to a neighbor's to lodge, under the heaviest cloud 
I ever felt in America. O what I felt! Nor I alone, 
but the agents on both sides— they wept like children, 
but kept their opinions." 

Looking back upon these events of more than a 
century ago, we are astonished at the patience and 
long-suffering of these men of God. They knew that 
Mr. Wesley did not understand their surroundings. 
He could not see as they saw it, the necessity for or- 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 175 



dained ministers, that the service of the Lord's house 
"might be perfect, wanting nothing." In England, 
where the form of religion was familiar to the great 
majority of the people, the deprivation was compara- 
tively slight; and in most cases it was a question of 
v propriety whether to receive the ordinances at the 
hands of men who were not scriptural shepherds of 
the flock, but mere hirelings of the State. In Amer- 
ica it was a question of receiving the ordinances 
through the new arrangement or not at all. There 
was no alternative. No man could tell how long the 
war might last, and with each new convert to the gos- 
pel the issue presented itself— no baptism, no Supper 
of the Lord. Other denominations taunted the Meth- 
odists with this state of things, and the humiliation 
of such an attitude was great in the extreme. The 
Presbyterians might have been reminded of the fact 
that John Calvin had never been ordained at all;* and 
the Baptists could only point backward a hundred and 
forty years to Roger Williams and Ezekiel Holliman 
for the beginning of a " succession of ministerial or- 
ders.'^ The Episcopalians, indeed, might have been re- 
minded of the fact that Thomas Cranmer, the father 
of the English Reformation, had never been ordained 
deacon, priest, or bishop, but from the status of a lay- 
man stepped at once to the office of an archbishop. 

So that in point of principle these "ordaining" 
brethren in Virginia were on the same platform with 
John Calvin, Roger Williams, and Thomas Cranmer. 
But Mr. Asbury turned away from his brethren 
and prepared to leave them, feeling that they had 

*Bayle's Dictionary, Art. "Calvin." f Benedict: m^r7oFthe 
Baptists, p. 441. 



176 The High-churchman Disarmed: 

made a breach in the house of the Lord. " I returned 
to take leave of the Conference," he says, "and to go 
immediately to the North; but found they were 
brought to an agreement while I had been praying, as 
with a broken heart, in the house we went to lodge 'at- 
and brothers Watters and Garrettson had been pray- 
ing upstairs where the Conference sat. We heard 
what they had to say. Surely the hand of God has 
been greatly seen in all this. There might have been 
twenty promising preachers and three thousand peo- 
ple seriously affected by this separation, but the Lord 
would not suffer this. We then had preaching by 
Brother Watters, on 'Come thou with us, and we will 
do thee good;' afterward we had a love-feast; preach- 
ers and people wept, prayed, and talked; so the spirit 
of dissension was powerfully weakened, and I hoped 
it would never take place again." 

The terms of the compromise which was agreed to 
at this Conference are not stated in full by Asbury, 
but William Watters, his spokesman, records them. 
"The terms of settlement were, that for the sake of 
peace, and to preserve the unity of Methodism, they 
should suspend the ordinances until Y/esley could be 
consulted." * Accordingly we find Mr. Asbury in Pe- 
tersburg on the 12th of May, making this note: "Best 
this day to write to Mr. Wesley." But the day of trial 
was not completely past. Asbury had now to per- 
suade the people to submit to receive the ordinances 
from the "clergy." On the 23d of May he says: "I 
have labored to get our friends well affected to the 
Episcopal Church; what could I do better when we had 
miUr^o^inances among us ? " Hard task it was to ef- 

* Bennett's Memorials, p. 119. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. Ill 



feet this reconciliation. In his travels southward Mr. 
Asbury found the spirit of separation on account of 
the ordinances prevailing everywhere. On the 16th 
of September he writes again to Mr. Wesley. He re- 
cords the fact that it was done "at the desire of the 
Virginia Conference, who. had consented to suspend 
the administration of the ordinances for one year." 
To this item in Asbury' s journal he appends a note, 
as follows: "The answer to this letter was made 
through Dr. Coke, Eichard Whatcoat, and Thomas 
Yasey, in 1784, who all came to America, properly or- 
dained. And here I will take occasion to correct a 
mistake into which Dr. Whitehead has fallen in his 
Life of Mr. Wesley. It is in that work stated that had 
Mr. Wesley obtained the consent of the American 
preachers and people, he might have sent ministers 
regularly ordained to the Society in that part of the 
world. The truth is that the American Methodists, 
both ministers and people, wished to have such minis- 
ters among them, that they might partake, like other 
Christian societies, of the ordinances of the Church 
of God; and when ministers did thus come, they re- 
ceived them generally and joyfully. I will further 
presume that Mr. Wesley received few letters from 
America in which that subject was not pressed upon 
him."* 

Dr. Hawks says: "To prevent, as far as possible, a 
renewal of the complaint of the want of the sacra- 
ments, some at least of the Episcopal clergy traveled 
over large circuits for the purpose of baptizing the 
children of Methodists and administering the eucha- 
rist." We have already seen that the "some" of Dr. 

* Asbury's Journal, vol. 1., p. 309. 



178 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



Hawks amounted to one man, Bey. Devereaux J arratt. 
The matter of his tender of service is mentioned by 
the historian as if it were one of the clauses which 
entered into the compact. So far from this being the 
case, it was on the 9th of May, 1780, that the settle- 
ment was effected, and the only record that is made of 
any special tender of service by Mr. Jarratt is in the 
date of April 21, 1782, in these words: "Mr. Jarratt 
seemed all life, and determined to spend himself in the 
work of God, and visit what circuits he could." This 
is a very slender foundation for the assertion of Dr. 
Hawks, but it afforded him an opportunity to say that 
"some of the clergy" — to wit, Mr. Jarratt— did all 
this, "until the final separation of the Methodists 
from the Church, without desiring or receiving for the 
service the smallest compensation." Mr. Jarratt's la- 
bors were highly esteemed by the early Methodists. 
The use that has been made of his connection with 
them has done great injustice to a worthy man whose 
memory is still precious to the lovers of Methodism. 
But the statement that his service operated as a 
means for restoring the breach in 1780, lias no war- 
rant in the history of the time. He wished well to 
Methodism, and was the earliest Methodist preacher in 
Virginia, as we may see in another place, recorded by 
his own hand. Although he did not bear the name, 
his teaching was substantially the same as that of Mr. 
Wesley and the Methodists, several years before the 
arrival of Robert Williams.* 

But the case is not yet completely before the read- 
er. Such was the earnestness of Asbury and his co- 
adjutors that the Conference made a public record of 



*Asbury's Journal, vol. i., p. 158. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 179 



their desire to receive the sacraments from worthy 
ministers among the Episcopalians. At the session 
of 1780 the question is asked: " Will this Conference 
grant the privilege to all the friendly clergy of the 
Church of England, at the request or desire of the peo- 
ple, to preach or administer the ordinances in our 
preaching-houses or chapels?" The answer is, Yes. 
Having made a solemn agreement to arrest the action 
of the Yirginia preachers by leaving the matter to the 
judgment of Mr. Wesley, these men of God kindly in- 
vite the Episcopal clergy to come to their relief. Two 
years later, at a Conference held in Yirginia after the 
memorable surrender of Lord Cornwallis, and as the 
dawn of peace was becoming apparent in the East, 
these itinerant preachers have a debt of gratitude to 
pay. They have called, by vote of Conference, by 
personal solicitation, and by every appropriate method, 
and the response to their call is recorded. They ap- 
pealed to the whole Episcopal clergy for aid in the 
time of their distress, and an answer came from one 
man — the Rev. Devereaux Jarratt. In these terms a 
vote of thanks is recorded: " The Conference acknowl- 
edge their obligations to the Rev. Mr. Jarratt for his 
kind and friendly services to the preachers and peo- 
ple from our first entrance into Yirginia, and more 
particularly for attending our Conference in Sussex, 
in public and private; and advise the preachers in the 
South to consult him and take his advice in the ab- 
sence of Brother Asbury." *■ This is a noble tribute to 
all parties. 

It is asked, "Shall we erase that question pro- 
posed in Deer Creek Conference respecting the ordi- 



* Minutes of 1782. 



The lligh-cliurcJinian Disarmed: 



nances?" The answer is: "Undoubtedly we must; 
it can have no place in our Minutes while we stand 
to our agreement signed in Conference; it is there- 
fore disannulled." Let it be observed that this rec- 
ord does not say that the ordinations in Virginia were 
pronounced invalid. The determination to adminis- 
ter the ordinances was the purport of the "ques- 
tion;" and while all parties have agreed to consult 
Mr. Wesley, the ordinances are to be suspended, and 
the record authorizing them is annulled. 



Chapter X. 

What is Membership in the Church of England? — Difficult Question 
— Xo Register of Members — Xo List of Communicants — Inde- 
pendent Churches only use Registers — Members of the Establish- 
ment — Was Washington a Member of the Church? — Did not take 
the Lord's Supper — An Exception — Baptism and the Supper — 
Regeneration and Life — King, Hooker, and others — Ipso Facto 
Excommunication — Result in the Case of Washington — John 
Hales, the " Ever Memorable " — Tract on Schism — Chillingworth 
— Ferocious Treatment — Archbishop Tillotson — Branding Dis- 
sent as Heresy — Separation from the Church — Brewster's Essay — 
John Wesley More Consistent than Charles — Xo Answer to the 
Query — Missionaries — Dr. White — Loyal Clergymen — Winter- 
botham's Prediction — First Steps toward Episcopal Organization 
— Circular Letters — Small Numbers — Xo Invitation to Methodists 
— Asbury Ignored — Xo Liking for " Enthusiasm " — A Wise Move- 
ment. 

ONE of the most difficult questions that can be 
propounded is, What does it require to consti- 
tute a member of the Church of England? The uni- 
versal custom of Protestant Churches — except those 
that are established by the State — requires a church- 
register, upon which is recorded the name of each 
member. Xo system of government is possible with- 
out definite terms of membership and permanent rec- 
ords of the members of a church. 

A State Church has no register of members, because 
it is assumed that every citizen belongs to the Estab- 
lishment. From the time of Constantine the Great 
to this day the union of Church and State has been 
greatly prejudicial to ever- interest of the kingdom 

(181) 



182 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



of Christ. "My kingdom is not of this world," said 
the Saviour, and the spiritual wants of men can never 
be supplied by carnal means. That Christianity has 
survived the unholy alliance with the State is due to 
the influence of pure religion, preserved in spite of the 
errors and wickedness of the great body of the peo- 
ple, by means of independent societies and the spirit 
of dissent or non-conformity. Left to itself, any na- 
tional Church would become corrupt, whether it looks 
to Borne or to Canterbury for its ecclesiastical insti- 
tutions. 

The existence of a list of members is a protest 
against a State Church and a prophecy of Church 
independence. Upon very small "class-papers" the 
names of early Methodists were recorded; but the 
church-register followed necessarily after the class- 
paper as soon as the " Church" took the place of the 
"Society." In America, among Episcopalians, there 
was, properly speaking, no Church in existence before 
the Revolution* If the bonds of organization are re- 
quired to make a union, there is nothing to be found 
in the history of Virginia which resembles it. A rec- 
ord of births, baptisms, marriages, and deaths was kept 
in some parishes, with more or less correctness. Cler- 
gymen came to Virginia, were installed in parishes, 
and performed their duties without any superior power 
to overlook them, and without any check upon their 
manner of life. The only possible method of exclud- 
ing a clergyman from the province was to refuse to 
pay his salary. This was at the option of his vestry- 
men, and, if he pleased them, there was no power 
that could reach him. 

It followed that as dissenters multiplied in Virginia 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 183 



it became more and more difficult to determine who 
belonged to the Establishment. Every native of the 
colony did not; that was evident. "I am a member 
of the Church of England," said General Washing- 
ton to a Presbyterian minister one day during the 
war, "but I have no exclusive partialities."* He de- 
sired to know if the Doctor intended to administer 
the Lord's Supper on the following Sunday, as he 
wished to partake of the communion. This is an au- 
thentic record of at least one occasion on which the 
Father of his Country identified himself with the fol- 
lowers of Christ. That he was not in the habit of 
receiving the communion we shall see presently. 

Now, what was it that made Washington " a mem- 
ber of the Church of England?" Not his baptism, 
for many who are baptized by Episcopal clergymen 
do not adhere to the Episcopal Church.f Mr. Wes- 

* Writings of Washington, vol. xiL, p. 410. 

t The benefits of baptism, according to the Prayer-book of the 
Church of England, are grouped together in the following extract : 
" It remains now to speak of the spiritual benefits which result from 
holy baptism to those who duly receive it according to the ordinance 
of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. They are spoken of in the 
Offices as e a washing and sanctifying with the Holy Ghost, a deliv- 
erance from the wrath of God, a receiving into the ark of Christ's 
Church, a remission of sins by spiritual regeneration, an embracing 
with the arms of God's mercy, a gift of the blessing of eternal life, 
a participation of God's everlasting kingdom, a bestowal of the Holy 
Spirit, a being bom again and made heir of everlasting salvation, a 
release from sins, a gift of the kingdom of heaven and everlasting 
life, a burial of the old Adam and raising up of the new man, an 
induing with heavenly virtues, a mystical washing away of sin, a 
regeneration and grafting into the body of Christ's Church, a death 
unto sin and a living unto righteousness, a putting on of Christ.' " — 
(Brunt's Annotated Book of Common Prayer, p. 405.) 



184 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



ley's definition, although somewhat obscure, is at least 
better than none. A member of the Church of En- 
gland, he tells us/ : - is "a believer, hearing the pure 
word of God preached, and partaking of the sacra- 
ments duly administered in that Church." Now, if 
it had chanced that Washington's home lay in the par- 
ish of one of those clergymen who ridiculed the doc- 
trines of Christianity at Williamsburg in 1774, fail- 
ing to hear the pure word of God preached, he would 
cease to be "a member of the Church of England in 
America." But, as the Eev. William White was for 
several years the President's pastor in Philadelphia, 
the first part of Mr. Wesley's definition is complied 
with. But is a man who does not partake of the Lord's 
Supper a member of the Church? Mr. Wesley says 
no. He must partake of the sacraments. This Gen- 
eral Washington did not do. Under date of August 
15, 1835, Bishop White says: "In regard to the sub- 
ject of your inquiry truth requires me to say that 
General Washington never received the communion 
in the churches of which I am parochial minister. 
Mrs. Washington was an habitual communicant." j 
The biographer of Bishop White says: "Though the 
General attended the churches in which Dr. White 
officiated whenever he was in Philadelphia during the 
Pv evolutionary War, and afterward while President of 
the United States, he never was a communicant in 
them. This fact does not disprove his belief in and 
respect for Christianity. For it is well known that 
some whose religious sincerity could not reasonably 
be doubted have been led to avoid a participation in 
that sacred ordinance from sincere, though over- 
- Works, vol. viii., p. 2S0. f Life of Bishop White, p. 197. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 185 



strained and mistaken, reverence for it."* This im- 
plies defective teaching on the part of the ministry. 

It is not probable that General Washington was 
kept from the communion-table by an " overstrained 
and mistaken reverence." Nor is it probable that any 
explanation will ever be found for his conduct in this 
respect. We may offer conjectures, but they fall far 
short of proofs. But the object of introducing his 
case is to arrive at a solution of the question, " What 
is a member of the Church of England? " We know 
what it is to be a member of the Baptist, the Presby- 
terian, or the Methodist Church. Certain conditions 
precedent are stated in terms perfectly intelligible to 
all. The Episcopalians in Virginia had no church- 
register— no name was recorded. A man claiming to 
be a member in one parish could not carry proof of 
the fact to another. There were no " certificates of 
membership." If a man should discard Quakerism 
and come to "the Church," there was no way to re- 
cord or to preserve the memory of the fact. If as a 
dissenter he went to the Lord's Supper, he was not 
repelled— as a Churchman he received no better treat- 
ment. What privilege, then, distinguished a Church- 
man from a Presbyterian or a Lutheran? Nothing 
can be named except the good- will and social advan- 
tages which belonged to the "Establishment." These 
were only the effects of a system which had been in- 
grafted upon the body politic, and there was nothing 
essentially religious in the name of "Churchman." 

But there are those in the Church of England who 
deny the character of Christians to all persons who 
fail or refuse to receive the sacrament of the Lord's 
* Life of Bishop White, p. 188. 



186 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



Supper. One of the ministers of the Church, in his 
" Lectures on the one Catholic and Apostolic Church," 
Eev. Kobert Jarrold King, says: "Our Lord said, 
with reference to the eucharist, that except a man be 
rightly a partaker of it, he had no spiritual life in 
him, and that if he be rightly a partaker of it, he 
dwells in Christ and Christ in him." * The "Judi- 
cious Hooker," in his "Ecclesiastical Polity," says: 
"The grace which we have by the holy eucharist doth 
not begin but continues life. No man, therefore, re- 
ceiveth this sacrament before baptism, because no 
dead thing is capable of nourishment. That which 
groweth must of necessity first live." f This view of 
the Lord's Supper naturally leads to the doctrine of 
Pusey, and this to the Roman Church. 

But, right or wrong, this is the theory of the Church 
of England. A soul is regenerated in baptism, and 
grows up into Christ through the sacrament of the 
Supper, "There is not any other way of entering 
the holiest by the blood and through the flesh of 
Christ, which harmonizes with the whole scope of this 
passage (Heb. x. 20) and with those which come after 
it, but by the persons who desire to enter in being 
partakers of the holy communion of the body and 
blood of Christ." J If this doctrine be true, what be- 
comes of the baptized persons who never go to the 
communion-table? What was the religious status of 
George Washington? 

This is only a portion of the problem involved in 
membership in the Church of England. By the can- 
ons of the Church any person who denies any one of 

* Lectures on the Church Universal, p. 150. f Ecclesiastical 
Polity, bk. v., c. 67, sec. 1. X King's Lectures, p. 269. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 187 



the Thirty-nine Articles, or speaks against the author- 
ity of the King in causes ecclesiastical, is ipso facto 
excommunicated *— he is cut off from the Church of 
God. Now, can it be believed that George Washing- 
ton, when fighting the armies of George III., accepted 
the doctrine of the royal supremacy in causes eccle- 
siastical? Did Washington believe that the King of 
England was the rightful governor of his soul at the 
time that he was repudiating political allegiance to 
the British sovereign? According to the law of the 
Church, Washington and every Whig in America was 
expelled from the Church of England by virtue of the 
act of rebellion against the King. There was not, 
therefore, among the patriots of America a member 
of the Church of England at the close of the war. 
The esteemed Dr. White was excommunicated by be- 
coming the chaplain of a rebel Congress. Every 
clergyman who refused to pray for the success of King 
George's armies was ipso facto, by the fact itself, with- 
out any measures, movements, orders, or actions what- 
ever by the ecclesiastical authorities, expelled from 
the Church. 

To be excluded from the communion of the Church 
of England by ipso facto laws is one thing, and to sep- 
arate from the Church is another. A great deal of 
absurdity has been written about the sin of schism. 
A deadly offense it is proclaimed to be, and the heaviest 
penalties are incurred by it. But what is schism ? The 
"ever-memorable John Hales" has written the best 
essay upon this subject that the English language af- 
fords. He was a Calvinist of the Church of England 
type, and attended the Synod of Dort, in 1619, in the 
* Canons of the Church of England, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 



ISS 



The Righ-ch/ircJuticni Disarmed: 



capacity of chaplain to Sir Dudley Carlton, King 
James's embassador. Listening to the masterly ad- 
dress of Episcopius in behalf of the Arminians, 
Hales, to use his own apt phrase, "bid Calvinism 
good-night." On his return to England he wrote his 
famous tract on Schism for the use of his friend Will- 
iam Chillingwortli. It was not intended for publica- 
tion, but soon found its way to the press, and has 
maintained its position among the very first produc- 
tions of the sixteenth century. 

Mr. Hales defines schism to be "the unnecessary 
separation of Christians from that part of the visible 
Church of which they were once members." He 
ranges all schism into two ranks: "1. In which only 
one party is schismatic; for where cause of schism is 
necessary, there not he that separates, but he that oc- 
casions the separation, is schismatic. '2. In which both 
parties are the schismatic; for where the occasion of 
separation is unnecessary, neither side can be excused 
from the guilt of schism.""* 

The unfortunate Chillingwortli was destined to ex- 
perience the severity of the sin of schism in his own 
person. Early in life a Romanist, he became a Prot- 
estant, and wrote the famous work which has given a 
watch-word to the Reformation: "The Bible alone is 
the religion of Protestants." At the beginning of 
the Civil "War he became a partisan of the King, and 
was captured by the Parliamentary army. He was 
taken to Chichester, where he died in 1641. A 
wretched bigot, Mr. Cheynell, whose name has been 
recorded in history only because he had an opportu- 
nity to insult and persecute a dying man, visited Mr. 



* Tract on Schism: Sparks. Theological Essays, v., p. 25. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 189 



Chilling worth on his death-bed. This heartless creat- 
ure published a tract in which he consigned himself 
to infamy in an account of "The Sickness, Heresy, 
Death, and Burial of William Chillingworth." Chey- 
nell was rector of Petworth, and in his parish the 
helpless man lingered for some time before death re- 
leased him from the persecution of a professed min- 
ister of Christ. After insulting the man on his couch 
of pain, this rector of Petworth accused him of deadly 
heresy, and refused to permit his body to be buried 
with the service appointed by the English Liturgy. 
The friends of Chillingworth attended his funeral, 
and there this " rector " appeared, not to express sym- 
pathy for the deceased, but to assault his memory by 
the foulest of calumnies. Chillingworth was branded 
as a hypocrite, a conceded papist, not a genuine son 
of the Church of England, etc., and his book was 
thrown into the grave, while Mr. Cheynell pronounced 
these words: "Get thee gone, then, thou cursed book, 
which hast seduced so many precious souls. Get thee 
gone, thou corrupt, rotten book; earth to earth, and 
dust to dust. Get thee gone into the place of rotten- 
ness, that thou mayest rot with thy author and see 
corruption!"- This extraordinary tirade was pro- 
nounced against a book which has taken its place 
among the English classics. 

We have here a case of undoubted schism. A man 
refuses to bury a brother minister, a member of his 
own Church, and carries the controversies of this life 
into the grave of a helpless mortal. The maxim of 
the heathens, that one should speak only that which is 
good of the dead, he not only refuses to obey, but 
? Life of Chillingworth, p. 362. 



190 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



quotes the words, and boasts of his having violated a 
sentiment which does honor to humanity. Why was 
this? Political antipathy had somewhat to do with 
the case, but there was a stronger reason still. Mr. 
Chillingworth was not a Calvinist, and Mr. Cheynell 
was. One was the advocate of a system of theology 
that confessed itself opposed to the dictates of reason, 
and the other endeavored to place the doctrines of the 
Bible in such a light that they might not shock those 
principles of justice that are inseparable from the 
human understanding. 

"I know not how it comes to pass," says Arch- 
bishop Tillotson, " whether through the popish party, 
who hate the light lest it should reprove them and 
make them manifest, or through the ignorance of too 
many well-meaning Protestants; I say I know not 
how it comes to pass, but so it is, that every one that 
offers to give a reasonable account of his faith, and to 
establish religion upon rational principles, is pres- 
ently branded for a Socinian, of which we have a sad 
instance in that incomparable person, Mr. Chilling- 
worth, the glory of this age and nation, who for no 
other cause that I know of but his worthy and success- 
ful attempts to make the Christian religion reasonable, 
and to discover those firm and solid foundations upon 
which our faith is built, hath been requited with this 
black and odious character. But if this be Socinian- 
ism, for a man to inquire into the grounds and reasons 
of the Christian religion, and endeavor to give a satisfac- 
tory account why he believes it, I know no way but that 
all considerate inquisitive men that are above fancy and 
enthusiasm must be either Socinians or atheists."* 
*Tillotson's Sermons, vol. xi., p. 4966. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



191 



To create discord in the bosom of the Church; to 
promote uncharitable, censorious, and unbrotherly 
conduct; to refuse to recognize our fellow-Christians 
at the table of the Lord because they follow not with 
us, and do not believe precisely as we do— this is 
schism, and nothing else is. Separation may or may 
not be the product of schism. Mr. Wesley gives us 
his definition of separation from the Church of En- 
gland as follows: "At present I apprehend those, and 
those only, to separate from the Church who either 
renounce her fundamental doctrines or refuse to join 
in her public worship." * According to the terms of 
this definition it is difficult to say whether the Ameri- 
can Methodists separated from the Church or not. 
Who shall determine what the "fundamental doc- 
trines" are? Mr. Wesley would make the list a very 
short one. Mr. Toplady would add many articles that 
Wesley would exclude. But surely no man of relig- 
ious culture, however superficial, would refuse to join 
in the worship of a Church at which he was present. 
Superstitious observances among the Eomanists are 
not expected of Protestants, but respectful and serious 
behavior is the duty of a gentleman who finds him- 
self in a public assembly wherein the worship of God 
is professed. 

We find ourselves at a loss, then, to determine what 
constitutes a member of the Church of England, and 
what separation is. It has never been charged that 
Methodists have renounced any fundamental doctrines 
of the gospel. On the contrary, it has been repeat- 
edly acknowledged that the Wesley ans have rendered 
essential service to th e Church in promoting morality 

* Wesley's Works, vol, xiii., p. 195, 



192 



The High-eli urclvman Disarmed: 



and true piety throughout England. A "Report of 
the Clergy in a District of the Diocese of Lincoln'' 
in the year 1800, while classifying "the people called 
Methodists," places in the first rank "persons profess- 
ing to be members of the Church of England, who 
regularly attend divine service at church, and partake 
of the holy sacrament, but have places set apart for 
additional exercises of devotions at such hours as do 
not interfere with the Church service. These we do 
not consider as enemies to the ecclesiastical Establish- 
ment, much less as contributing to the neglect or per- 
version of religious worship, but, on the contrary, have 
found them useful and zealous auxiliaries in reform- 
ing and reclaiming many habitual sinners, both by 
their admonition and example." * So long as these 
convenient and serviceable laborers are satisfied with 
a position in which they are tolerated for their work's 
sake, all is well. But the second section of Method- 
ists consists of well-meaning but ignorant persons who 
are "not sufficiently aware of the unlawfulness" of ad- 
ministering the sacraments to the people whom the 
Lord has given them. These are guilty of schism 
and grievous wickedness.f Among these the annals 
of High-churchmen place Adam Clarke, Richard 
Watson, Joseph Benson, and Jabez Bunting! 

Mr. Sidney, in his Life of the Rev. Samuel Walker, 
of Truro, speaking of the attitude of the Wesleyans in 
England, says: ''They have never formally professed 
dissent, whereby they are placed in a different position 
from that of Non-conformists in general; but, though 
dissent has not been proclaimed by them, they are dis- 
senters. They forsake our discipline and our orders, 
* Brewster's Essay, p. 17G. f Ibid., p. 177. 



A Defense qf Our MetMdm Fathers. 193 



while they have no objection to our episcopacy or our 
services; and it may be, as Watson observes, ''there is 
a warmer regard toward the Church among the body 
of Methodists now than there was in the days of Mr. 
Wesley. 5 In their teaching, also, they are in a great 
degree at variance with our articles, which are far 
from sanctioning their views of faith, justification, 
imputed righteousness, perfection, and their notions 
of the power of the human will. ... As long, how- 
ever, as the Methodists retain the peculiar doctrines 
before alluded to, the standard Ave subscribe renders 
all prospects of a formal union a visionary scheme; 
nor can the Church assent to their methods of apply- 
ing the services of laymen." * 

By attendance at church in canonical hours Mr. 
John Wesley preserved, after a fashion, a sort of con- 
sistency; but Charles "Wesley, High-churchman as he 
was, did not fail to hold service in church hours, ad- 
ministering the communion in unconsecrated places at 
the same hour that the rector of the parish was simi- 
larly employed in the parish church. 

* Life of Samuel Walker, pp. 237, 238, 239. Mr. Sidney's opin- 
ion has been justified by the event. If a " formal union" of the 
Wesleyans and the Established Church had been possible prior to 
1SS2, it is now out of the question. In that year the final steps 
were taken thai placed Wesleyan Methodism on the basis of a true, 
independent Church of Christ, having adopted the Twenty-five Ar- 
ticles prepared by Mr. Wesley as the symbol of faith for the Ameri- 
can Methodist Church. Mr. Sidney devotes a large part of a bulky 
volume to the correspondence between Mr. "Walker and the Wesleys. 
A convenient abridgment of John Wesley's part of the correspond- 
ence gives a false notion of the matter in controversy. Mr. Sidney 
endeavors to prove that Samuel Walker and Thomas Adam did as 
much or more than the Wesleys toward the great revival of the 
eighteenth century. A grim commentary on this assertion is seen 
13 



194 The High-church man Disarmed: 



" For twenty years lie made more noise on the sub- 
ject of the continued union of the Methodists with 
the Church than any man of the age, and all this 
while he was, beyond comparison, the greatest prac- 
tical separatist in the whole Connection. Mr. John 
Wesley spent most of his time in traveling through 
Great Britain and Ireland, often preaching twice ev- 
ery day and two or three times on the Sabbath. 
Barely, however, did he preach in church hours, ex- 
cept when he officiated for a brother clergyman. Many 
of the itinerant preachers pursued the same course. 
They preached to their own congregations at an early 
hour on the Sunday morning, at noon, and in the 
evening, and in the forenoon and afternoon they were 
present with their people at the service of the Church. 
This was the recognized plan of Methodist practice, 
and though several refused to conform to it, especially 
where the clergy were unfriendly or immoral, yet oth- 
ers were even zealous for it, especially where the clergy 
were kind and tolerant. 

"But this was not the state of things in London 
under the administration of Mr. Charles Wesley. He 
preached during church hours every Sabbath, and in- 
dulged the Societies with a weekly sacrament at their 

in the fact that even the English editor of Mr. "Wesley's works did 
not know the name of Mr. Walker's ardent friend. In Vol. XIII. 
of Wesley's Works Rev. Thomas Adam appears as Rev Thomas Ad- 
ams! Mr. Sidney says that John Wesley's correspondence witli 
Samuel Walker ended with Wesley's letter to Mr. Walker, dated 
September 3, 1756. The truth is that John Wesley wrote two other 
letters to Mr. Walker, one under date of September 16, 1757, and 
the other dated October, 1758. This correspondence is evidently 
cut short in order to place Mr. Wesley in a disadvantageous light. 
But history will vindicate the world's heroes sooner or later. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 195 



own places of worship, so that they had no opportu- 
nity of attending their several churches, nor any mo- 
tive to attend them. He conducted divine worship, 
indeed, according to the order of the Church of En- 
gland, except that he used extemporary prayer and 
sung his own beautiful hymns ; but he and the Society 
had no more connection with the Established Church 
than any dissenting minister and congregation had. 
He was under no Episcopal control; the chapels in 
which he officiated were licensed by no bishop; and 
the clergy in whose parishes those chapels were sit- 
uated were never consulted as to the time and manner 
of divine service. The uneasiness which frequently 
arose in some of the country Societies took its origin 
in part from this state of things. They wished to be 
upon an equality with their metropolitan brethren, 
and they were never satisfied, either during the life- 
time of the Wesley s, or after their death, till this was 
conceded to them." ** 

Thus it appears that Charles Wesley, whom High- 
churchmen delight to quote as a persistent friend of 
union with the Church, was the only man whose ex- 
ample promoted absolute separation from it. The 
brothers were both inconsistent with themselves and 
with their own principles at different times and places, 
but no man who is acquainted with the facts in each 
case can impeach their motives. Dearly as Charles 
Wesley held the rigid Church prejudices which he 
had inherited, he esteemed the salvation of souls 
above all the forms and ceremonies in the world. 
John Wesley's whole system was the offspring of 
providential developments. He planned, arranged, 
* Jackson's Life of Charles Wesley, pp. 428, 427. 



196 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



and executed his plans in the light of the gospel mes- 
sage to dying men. Whatever measure advanced the 
salvation of souls, or seemed likely to do so, he readily 
adopted and retained it only so long as it appeared to 
be suited to his purpose. He could afford to be in- 
consistent in his means, who never wavered for a mo- 
ment from the end he had in view. The polar star 
was not more steady in its place than John Wesley in 
promoting the glory of God and the religious welfare 
of his fellow-men. 

" When Mr. Smyth pressed us to ' separate from the 
Church,' he meant ' go to Church no more.' And this 
was what I meant seven and twenty years ago, when 
I persuaded our brethren 'not to separate from the 
Church.' But here another question occurs: 'What 
is the Church of England?' It is not 'all the people 
of England.' Papists and dissenters are no part there- 
of. It is not all the people of England except papists 
and dissenters. Then we should have a glorious 
Church indeed! No; according to our Twentieth Ar- 
ticle a particular Church is a ' congregation of faith- 
ful people' (ccetus fidelium, the words in our Latin 
edition), 'among whom the word of God is preached 
and the sacraments duly administered.' What, then, 
according to this definition, is the Church of En- 
gland?"* 

Thus, in his letter to Charles in 1785, he propounds 
the question which we find, as he did, unanswerable. 
A vague, uncertain thing is this membership in the 
Church of England! A man does nothing to get into 
it; is required to do nothing to remain in; and does 
nothing in order to get out of it. He is excommuni- 

* Wesley's Works, vol. xiii., p. 253. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



197 



cated without a trial, as he is received without his own 
consent. He pronounces himself a member, and he 
is accepted as one. According to the whim of a bish- 
op, or the malice of a bigot, he is declared out of the 
Church, although he may be in it; and at another time 
is as confidently maintained a member of it when he 
steadfastly affirms the contrary! 

It is impossible to obtain the statistics of the early 
Methodists in America in order to ascertain what pro- 
portion of them ever attended the service of the Epis- 
copal clergymen. It is susceptible of proof that the 
revival of religion in which the itinerant preachers 
were engaged brought a large number of communi- 
cants to the Lord's Supper in Maryland and Virginia. 
In many instances the number of communicants at the 
table of the Episcopal churches was not only much 
larger, but the revival alone brought a greater number 
than had ever communicated before. A fictitious 
prosperity, which they had done nothing to promote, 
was thrust upon the clergy and the Church. The va- 
rious " diaries " and "Journals" of the time furnish us 
with a rule by which we may determine the amount 
of encouragement which the Methodists received at 
the hands of the Episcopal ministers. Mr. Asbury, 
Mr. Kankin, Messrs. Boardman and Pilmoor, and all 
the English preachers, endeavored to create a senti- 
ment favorable to the Church, and they sought by all 
practicable means to induce the people to attend the 
service at the parish churches. 

But there were only a few missionaries north of 
Maryland. There were eighty Episcopal ministers at 
the beginning of the war, and perhaps not one-third of 
those remained at the close of the struggle. Some of 



198 



The lligh-diu rchma n Disarmed: 



these were royalists, who had committed themselves 
too seriously to escape from the resentments of the 
Whigs, and, as a matter of necessity, emigrated to 
British territory. The Memoirs of Dr. William White 
will assist us in determining the status of the Ameri- 
can Methodists in 1784, and the esteem in which they 
were held by the "clergy." We shall be able to see 
from the history he has furnished us that the action 
of our Methodist forefathers was as fully justified as 
it could be by any series of events which could author- 
ize the organization of an independent Church. 

Speaking of the difficulties in the way of the Epis- 
copal Churches at the close of the war, he says: "To 
add to the evil, many able and worthy ministers, cher- 
ishing their allegiance to the King of Great Britain, 
and entertaining conscientious scruples against the 
use of the Liturgy under the restriction of omitting 
the appointed prayers for him, ceased to officiate. 
Owing to these circumstances the doors of the far 
greater number of the Episcopal churches were closed 
for several years. In the State in which this work is 
edited there was, through its whole extent, but one 
resident minister of the Church in question— he who 
records the fact." * 

This is a very gentle statement of the case, and it 
is made by one who was chaplain to the American 
Congress, and had no political sympathy with his roy- 
alist brethren. But he proceeds, in his "Additional 
Statements," added at a later period, to present the 
religious situation which the early Methodists, as we 
have seen in the previous chapter, endeavored to im- 
prove by the irregular ordination of ministers. 

* White's Memoirs, p. 17. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 199 



"In Maryland and Virginia," says Dr. White, 
"there were many of the clergy whose connections 
with their flocks were rendered by their personal 
characters dependent wholly on the Church establish- 
ment, and of course fell with it. Again, many worthy 
ministers entertained scruples in regard to the oatli 
of allegiance to the States, without the taking of 
which they were prohibited from officiating by laws 
alike impolitic and severe. But it must be seen that 
scruples of this sort were of another nature than the 
question here stated for consideration. In the North- 
ern States there were no such laws, but the clergy 
generally declined officiating on the ground of their 
ecclesiastical tie to the Liturgy of the Church of En- 
gland. As they were generally men of respectable 
characters, the discontinuance of their administrations 
had an unhappy effect on the Church, and is here 
mentioned as one cause contributing to the low state 
in which we were left by the Revolutionary War." * 

" The inhabitants of Wilmington, Newbern, Eden- 
ton, and Halifax districts in North Carolina," says 
Winterbotham in 1793, "making about three-fifths of 
the State, once professed themselves of the Episcopal 
Church. The clergy in those districts were chiefly 
missionaries, and in forming their political attachments 
at the commencement of the late war personal safety, 
or real interest, or perhaps a conviction of the impolicy 
of opposing Great Britain, from whence they derived 
their salaries, induced them almost universally to de- 
clare themselves in favor of the British Government, 
and to emigrate. There may be one or two of the 
original clergy remaining, but at present they have 
* White's Memoirs, p. 82. 



200 The High-churchman Disarmed: 

no particular pastoral charge; indeed, the inhabitants 
in the districts above mentioned seem now to be mak- 
ing the experiment whether Christianity can exist long 
in a country where there is no visible Christian Church. 
The Baptists and the Methodists have sent a number 
of missionary preachers into these districts, and some 
of them have large congregations. It is probable that 
one or the other of these denominations, and perhaps 
both, may acquire consistency, and establish perma- 
nent churches." * The sagacity of this writer is at- 
tested by the existence of more than eighty-five thou- 
sand Methodist communicants in the white popula- 
tion of North Carolina at the present time. 

This was the state of affairs when "the first step 
toward the forming of a collective body of the Epis- 
copal Church in the United States was taken at a 
meeting for another purpose of a few clergymen of 
New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, at Bruns- 
wick, in New Jersey, on the 13th and 14th of May 
1784." t 

Whether the meetings held at the house of Dr. 
White, in Philadelphia, can be called "a step toward 
the forming of a collective body," we cannot say; but 
those meetings were held in March and April preced- 
ing the meeting in Brunswick. Drs. White and Ma- 
gaw had a conversation which led to a meeting at the 
house of Dr. White, rector of Christ Church and St. 
Peter's. At this first meeting there were two clergy- 
men and two laymen present. " The body thus assem- 
bled, after taking into consideration the necessity of 
speedily adopting measures for the forming a plan of 

*Winterbotham's History of the United States, vol. iii., p. 211. 
f White's Memoirs, p. 82. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 201 



ecclesiastical government for the Episcopal Church, 
are of opinion that a subject of such importance ought 
to be taken up, if possible, with the concurrence of the 
Episcopalians generally in the United States. They 
therefore resolve to ask a conference with such mem- 
bers of the Episcopal congregations in the counties of 
this State as are now in town, and they authorize the 
clergymen now present to converse with such persons 
as they can find of the above description, and to re- 
quest their meeting this body at Christ's Church on 
Wednesday evening at seven o'clock." * 

On the 31st of March, 1784, "the clergy and the two 
committees assembled, according to adjournment (all 
of the members being present except M Clarkson, 
Esq., detained by sickness), and the body thus assem- 
bled elected Dr. White their chairman. The clergy 
reported that agreeably to the appointment of the last 
meeting they had spoken to several gentlemen, who 
readily consented to the proposed conference. The 
meeting continued some time, when it was signified to 
them that several gentlemen who had designed to at- 
tend were detained by the unexpected sitting of the 
honorable House of Assembly, they being members of 
that House. The Hon. Samuel Read, Esq., attended 
according to desire. 

"After some conversation on the business of this 
meeting it was resolved that a circular letter be ad- 
dressed to the Church-wardens and vestrymen of the 
respective Episcopal congregations in the State, and 
that the same be as f olloweth, viz. : 

"Gentlemen: The Episcopal clergy in this city, together with a 
committee appointed by the vestry of Christ's Church and St. Peter's, 

*Fac-similes of Church Documents, D. 22. 



202 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



and another committee appointed by the vestry of St. Paul's Church 
in the same, for the purpose of proposing a plan of ecclesiastical gov- 
ernment, being now assembled, are of opinion that a subject of such 
importance ought to be taken up, if possible, with the concurrence 
of the Episcopalians generally in the United States. They have 
therefore resolved, as preparatory to a general consultation, to re- 
quest the Church-wardens and vestrymen of each Episcopal congre- 
gation in the State to delegate one or more of their body to assist at 
a meeting to be held in this city on Monday, the 24th day of May, 
and such clergymen as have parochial cure in the said congregations 
to attend the meeting, which they hope will contain a full represen- 
tation of the Episcopal Church in this State. The above resolve, 
gentlemen, the first step in their proceedings, they now respectfully 
and affectionately communicate to you. Signed in behalf of the 
body now assembled: William White, Ckairmanr 

"Resolved, That a circular letter be sent to some one 
gentleman in each of the said congregations, and that 
copies of the same be left with the chairman, the re- 
spective directions to be supplied by him after due in- 
quiry, and that the letter be as followeth, viz.: 

u Sir: The body herein mentioned, being informed that you are a 

member of the Episcopal Church in , and always ready 

to attend to its concerns, take the liberty of requesting you to de- 
liver the inclosed. Signed in behalf of the said body: 

"William AVhite, Chairman." 

"Resolved, That the letters addressed to the churches 
formerly included in the mission of Kadnor be inclosed 
under cover to the Eev. TY\ Currie, their former pas- 
tor, and the clergy are desired to accompany them 
with a letter to the said reverend gentleman, request- 
ing his assistance at the proposed meeting. 

"Resolved, That, as the Eev. Joseph Fletcher is the 
minister of the churches formerly included in the 
mission of Lancaster, the circular letter be addressed 
to him, and not to the Church-wardens and vestrymen 
of the said congregations. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 203 

"Resolved, That it be recommended to the vestries 
under whose appointments these proceedings are 
made to cause the same to be read to their respective 
congregations on Easter Monday at their annual elec- 
tion of Church-wardens and vestrymen. The chair- 
man is empowered to call meeting at any time previous 
to Easter. Adjourned." 

These minutes of the meetings in. Philadelphia 
show that the movement which resulted in the organi- 
zation of the Episcopal Church began in that city, and 
the subsequent events are of special interest. On the 
6th of April the clergy and the committees met, the 
same persons being present, except Mr. Bead. " The 
chairman reported that he had forwarded to every 
Church of which he could receive information." Two 
small congregations were reported, of whose location 
it could not be determined whether they were in Del- 
aware or Pennsylvania. If the chairman found that 
they were in Pennsylvania they were to be notified. 
The letters sent out were to Radnor, Lancaster, Ox- 
ford, All-saints, Whitemarch, Bristol, Reading, Mor- 
latten, Carlisle, York, "a Church near York," Chester, 
Marcus Hook, and Concord. Thus there were fourteen 
Episcopal congregations, and among them there were 
only two ministers outside of Philadelphia, and but 
two in the city. By this account we h&vefour Episco- 
pal ministers in the State in the month of April, 1784. 

Now where were the Methodists, "members of the 
Church of England in America? " The Rev. Mr. Ma- 
gaw was well acquainted with Francis Asbury, and had 
preached to congregations of Methodists in Delaware 
and Maryland during the war. Asbury notices him 
several times in his Journal, and speaks of him as a 



204 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



brother whose kindness and affection were in anil st. 
Why did not Mr. Magaw call Dr. White's attention to 
the fact that there were several hundred Methodist 
people in Pennsylvania who were regarded as members 
of the Episcopal Church, and that these Methodist 
Episcopalians had nourishing Societies in Philadel- 
phia, York, and elsewhere? Mr. Asbury and a con- 
ference of preachers, more in number than all the 
Episcopal clergymen in the thirteen colonies at that 
time, were in session in Sussex county, Ya., on the 
29th of April. The Eev. Mr. Jarratt was there, but 
not a word is mentioned to the itinerant preachers 
about a plan for a government for their Church in the 
United States. 

Does any man believe that Dr. White regarded Mr. 
Asbury as a member of the Episcopal Church in the 
United States? If he had so regarded him, would 
the project of a convention of the Church be under- 
taken without giving notice to the Methodist preach- 
ers in Pennsylvania? That was the time for Dr. 
White and his friends to claim the fellowship of his 
Methodist brethren. If he had done so, the pretense 
that the Methodists separated from the Episcopal 
Church in America would have had some foundation, 
some evidence to support it. 

The convention called for the 24th of May, 1784, 
met in Philadelphia according to appointment. On 
that day Francis Asbury was liolding his conference 
with the Methodist preachers in Baltimore. A letter 
had been received by him from Mr. Wesley, in which 
Asbury was appointed "general assistant," with full 
authority to represent Mr. Wesley, " and to receive no 
preachers from Europe that are not recommended by 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



205 



hiin, nor any in America who will not submit to 
me and to the minutes of the conference." * As far 
as the records of both parties go, there does not seem 
to have been a word of communication between the 
Methodist preachers, whom Dr. Hawks claimed as 
members of the Episcopal Church, and the parties 
who were taking steps to organize a new Church in the 
United States. Asbury and his co-laborers were not 
"clergymen" in the technical sense of the term. 
They were not vestrymen nor Church-wardens, but if 
they were members of the Episcopal Society they de- 
served the ordinary respect of a notice of some kind to 
let them know that measures were being inaugurated 
for the creation of a Church. It is scarcely possible 
that Dr. White could be ignorant of Asbury's strug- 
gle on the subject of the ordinances. It is certain 
that Dr. White's coadjutor, Dr. Magaw, was well in- 
formed concerning the matter, for he was present 
when the question was discussed by Asbury and his 
friends in Delaware and in Maryland. Why did not 
Dr. White do as any other liberal-spirited gentleman 
would have done in such a case? Why did he not 
write to Mr. Asbury, or suggest to Dr. Magaw to do so, 
and inform him that the controversy concerning the 
ordinances would be settled in a short time by placing 
the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States 
upon an independent footing? Is it morally possible 
that a man who had the welfare of the Lord's people 
on his heart should take such important steps as Dr. 
White did, and calmly, coolly, studiously ignore the 
majority of the members of his Church in Pennsyl- 
vania ? 



*Asbury's Journal, vol. i., p. 363. 



203 



It is not conceivable upon any hypothesis that has 
ever been given for the government of human actions. 
The truth is, Dr. White had no liking for the Meth- 
odists. He had no association with them; did not 
approve of their methods, and was dreadfully afraid 
of their "enthusiasm." His biographer, Dr. Wilson, 
takes occasion to introduce the aged Bishop, in his 
eighty-second year, recording his impressions of the 
preaching of Whitefield. Of that great man he ex- 
presses an opinion that can only be correctly stated in 
his own words: "The first consideration which weak- 
ened his authority with me was a comparison of his 
obligations assumed at ordination with his utter dis- 
regard of them, a subject new to me when his case 
presented it. . . . That Mr. Whitefield had some expe- 
dient reconciling his mind to his deviations cannot 
reasonably be doubted; but in consideration of what 
he has said in print of his having been carried away 
by impressions and feeling, it is not uncharitable to 
class his case among the many in which enthusiasm, 
consistently with general good intentions, leads to re- 
sults not consistent with moral obligation." In one of 
his appended notes the Bishop adds: "It has been 
urged, in favor of the animal feelings excited by the 
preaching of Mr. Whitefield, and of other preachers of 
the same stamp, that however many the subsequent 
declensions, a portion of the converts are reclaimed 
from sin and continue faithful. The question of the 
expedience of any specified means of conversion should 
rest, not on this ground, but on Scripture in alliance 
with the dictates of reason and of prudence." He 
proceeds to draw a comparison between the "probable 
number of persons who are brought to a religious 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 207 



state and a suitable life by a preaching not attended 
by the extravagances alluded toy' and the subjects of 
revival excitements. "So far as my personal observa- 
tion extends, what are sometimes called revivals would 
suffer much by the comparison." * 

It is probable that Bishop "White's acquaintance 
with genuine revivals of religion was exceedingly lim- 
ited, but it is positively certain that Dr. White's fel- 
lowship for the Methodist people had no outward ex- 
pression in 1784; therefore, when the convention met 
in New York in October there was not a man present 
who had been in any way connected with " the people 
called Methodists." Volunteers appeared from Mas- 
sachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Penn- 
sylvania, Delaware, and Maryland. One clergyman, 
Dr. Griffiths, from Virginia, appeared as a spectator 
simply, "the clergy of that State, being restricted by 
laws yet in force there, were not at liberty to send del- 
egates, or consent to any alteration in the order, gov- 
ernment, doctrine, or worship of the Church." f Six- 
teen clergymen and eleven laymen were present, and 
after the adoption of several general principles of ec- 
clesiastical union they called a convention to be held 
on "the Tuesday before the feast of St. Michael," in 
the city of Philadelphia. This convention met in Sep- 
tember, 1785, and while they were engaged in prepar- 
ing the way for a regular organization of a Church, 
the "Methodist Episcopal Church in America" had 
unfurled its banner to the breeze, and with nearly one 
hundred ministers and over fifteen thousand commu- 
nicants was growing rapidly in favor with the people. 



* Wilson's Life of Bishop White, pp. 23, 24, 25, 26. f See. " Broad- 
side:'' Fac-similes of Church Documents, L>. 27. 



20S 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



The Philadelphia convention was not engaged in 
reorganizing a Church. They laid the foundation 
principles, adopted lay delegation, determined on a 
rescension of the Book of Common Prayer, and set 
forth a system of Church government that differed m 
as many particulars and in as important points from 
the government of the Church of England as the 
Methodist Episcopal Church did. Nothing remained 
of any form or fabric of Church authority in America, 
except a few church-edifices and the persons who wor- 
shiped in them. From the vestryman to the bishop 
every process of constitution and election was new and 
hitherto untried. But what right had two clergymen 
in Philadelphia, or sixteen clergymen and eleven lay- 
men in New York, to call a convention of Episcopa- 
lians in any city or at any time? The same right, no 
more, no less, than that exercised by Dr. Coke, Fran- 
cis Asbury, Eichard Whatcoat, Thomas Tasey, and 
Freeborn Garrettson to call a special convention of 
Methodist preachers to organize a Methodist Episco- 
pal Church in America. Not one privilege of birth, 
station, or ecclesiastical power can be cited in favor of 
Dr. White and his brethren that does not equally be- 
long to Dr. Coke and his coadjutors. The same Epis- 
copal hands had been laid upon Dr. White and Dr. 
Coke according to the canons of the Church of En- 
gland. Dr. White saw fit to call into consultation one 
section of the Episcopal Church in America to devise 
means for organization, and Dr. Coke came to assem- 
ble another section that had not only been overlooked, 
but scornfully repudiated by the clerical and High- 
church faction. Where there are no vested rights, no 
titles by prescription, is not the territory in the Lord's 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



209 



vineyard open to any laborer who may seek to culti- 
vate it by his Master's command? The Methodists 
did not complain of exclusion, but, like true men and 
true embassadors of Christ, they proceeded to do at 
the moment that which seemed best calculated to ad- 
vance the interests of the kingdom of Christ. 

If Dr. White regarded Mr. Whitefield as a traitor to 
moral obligation because he became an evangelist and 
carried the gospel to those who had never heard it, 
there can be no doubt that he regarded Asbury and 
his preachers as deluded "enthusiasts," whose work 
would soon come to naught. Opposed as he was to 
the principal means which the itinerant preachers 
employed for the conversion of the people, Dr. White 
could not have labored in the same Church organiza- 
tion with men who esteemed the religion of the Bible 
as the power of God ruling the heart, the head, and 
the life. The extreme caution which the Episcopal 
rector manifested against "animal feelings" would 
have rendered his presence in a Methodist Church as 
unwelcome as the freezing blasts from Hudson's Bay, 
while the warm exhortations and glowing periods of 
Asbury and Coke would have created consternation 
among the fashionable "Churchmen" of Philadel- 
phia. 

The event was of God, and a hundred years of history 
records the wisdom of both parties in proceeding in- 
dependently of each other. There are many persons 
for whom the ceremonials of Christianity are the 
only instrumentalities by which their peculiarly en- 
dowed temperaments can develop the religious life. 
It is possible that the worship of God may be as sin- 
cere and as fruitful of good, when the forms of a lit- 
14 



210 



urgy are employed, as it may be among those who 
have no taste for the unvarying terms of a prayer- 
book service. But there are multitudes to whom the 
grandest declarations of truth are but dead and cheer- 
less words unless they are filled with the power of hu- 
man sympathy, and convey the warm breathings of 
the Spirit of God. Pentecost is appreciated in Meth- 
odism. It cannot occur in the cathedrals of High- 
churchmen. 



Methodists not Members of the Church of England— Dr. Pcrteius 
Decides the Question — Dr. Draper Excluded from the Pulpit 
of London — A Liberal Bishop — Irreconcilable Differences — Wes- 
ley and Toplady — Great Elasticity of the Articles - Diversity of 
Sects under the Commonwealth — Methodist Mission to the Poor — 
Charles Wesley's Prophecy — A Poet's Fears— Danger of Chaos in 
Too Much Liberty — W T esley Afraid of Discord — Dr. Hawks and 
the Methodists — No Secession from the Episcopalians — Method- 
ism First in the Field — Episcopalians Followed — Taxation for 
Church Purposes— Incorporation of the Episcopal Church in Vir- 
ginia—Temporary Prosperity— Act Eepealed— Adversity follows. 

IF it be possible to prove any fact bearing upon the 
question of membership in the Church of England, 
we have testimony from one of the first dignitaries of 
the English Establishment. It is the formal declara- 
tion made by Dr. Porteus, Bishop of London, that a 
Methodist is not a member of the Church of England. 
The case is that of Dr. Draper, an episcopally ordained 
clergyman, whom the Bishop had expressly prohibited 
from officiating in his diocese. A friend applied to 
the Bishop in behalf of Dr. Draper, and the reply is 
as follows: 

"As I understood that Dr. Draper was what you rep- 
resent him to be, a man of piety and a good preacher, 
it gave me, I assure you, no small pain to feel myself 
under the necessity of excluding him from the pul- 
pits of my diocese; but his own conduct rendered it 
in me an indispensable duty. Instead of confining 
himself, which, as a minister of the Church of En- 
gland, he ought to have done, to the celebration of 

(211) 



212 



divine service in places of worship licensed or conse- 
crated by his diocesan and authorized by law, he chose 
to become the president of a college and preacher in 
a chapel founded by Lady Huntingdon for the pur- 
pose of training up lay preachers for conventicles, 
licensed as dissenting meeting-houses. Lady Hunt- 
ingdon, though a pious woman, was unquestionably 
not a member of the Church of England, but what is 
strictly and properly so called, a Methodist, professing 
the doctrines of one of the first founders of Method- 
ism — George Whitefield— and educating young men 
to preach those doctrines without episcopal ordina- 
tion. There could not, therefore, be a more injudi- 
cious and offensive measure, or one more hostile to 
the Church of England, than to become president 
of such a college and the preacher in such a chapel 
founded for such purposes." * 

This is the language of one of the most liberal- 
minded men that ever occupied a place in the English 
hierarchy. His parents were natives of Virginia, and 
he is regarded by many as having been too complai- 
sant to the dissenters from the Established Church. 

"What Dr. Draper has done," he continues, "is 
moreover directly repugnant to the canons of the 
Church of England, which prohibit every minister of 
that Church from preaching in any chapel that is not 
sanctioned and allowed by the ecclesiastical laws of 
the realm under very severe penalties; and were I to 
proceed to extremities, those penalties must be in- 
flicted. But I have taken a milder course. I have 
only excluded from the parochial churches of my dio- 
cese a clergyman who has separated himself for a 
$ Life of Dr. Porteus, Bishop of London, p. 267, 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



considerable part of the year from the Established 
Church and set up a Church of his own, neither li- 
censed nor consecrated by his diocesan. I neither 
blame Dr. Draper nor any other man for following the 
dictates of his own conscience in matters of religion. 
I would have every man permitted to worship God 
without interruption or molestation in the manner he 
most approves. But then let him be consistent. Let 
him not halt between two opinions. Let him not vi- 
brate between two modes of worship. Let him not be 
a Methodist in the morning and a Church of England 
man in the afternoon. I never can consent that any 
clergyman in my diocese should so divide himself be- 
tween sectarism and the Establishment, between the 
Church of England and the Church of Lady Hunt- 
ingdon. Let him take his part and adhere to it stead- 
ily and uniformly throughout." * 

This clergyman was made Bishop of Chester in 1776 
and translated, on the death of Bishop Lowth, to the 
See of London in 1787, a few months after Dr. Will- 
iam White and Dr. Provoost had been ordained bish- 
ops at Lambeth. Mr. Wesley was still alive when this 
prelate entered upon the duties of that diocese to 
which the American colonies had been attached. That 
he did not interfere with Mr. Wesley is a singular 
fact. John Wesley did, beyond a doubt, celebrate 
divine service in places of worship not " consecrated 
by his diocesan." Why did Dr. Draper experience 
the severity of the canon law, while Mr. Wesley es- 
caped? 

It is easy enough for those who have been reared 
under a system of unqualified religious liberty to de- 
* Life of Dr. Porteus, Bishop of London, p. 260. 



2M Tile Hi'jh-chiirchman Disarmed: 

termine the path of duty for others not similarly sit- 
uated. We can say in a moment that the manifest 
duty of Mr. Wesley and Dr. Draper was to withdraw 
from the Established Church. But it so happens 
that the theology of Lady Huntingdon's Connection 
exactly agrees with that of the Calvinist section of 
the Church of England, and Mr. Wesley's doctrines 
were in the main the doctrines of the Homilies and 
the Arminian party in the Church. The Bishop of 
Lincoln wrote a "Befutation of Calvinism," and the 
excellent Dr. Hodgson, biographer of Bishop Porte as, 
thought that " the intricate and long agitated question 
was set at rest forever."'" Calvinism may be, as an- 
other Church of England writer asserts it to be, "a 
system consisting of human creatures without liberty, 
doctrines without sense, faith without reason, and a 
God without mercy;" but it is essentially the system 
inculcated in the Thirty-nine Articles. The Armin- 
ian sense of Mr. Wesley and the Calvinist sense of 
Mr. Whitefleld or Mr. Toplady are irreconcilably hos- 
tile to each other, bat both parties claimed to hold 
the doctrines of the Church. 

Why should Dr. Draper leave the Church of En- 
gland on account of its doctrines if he found his Cal- 
vinism taught in them, and saw clergymen like Mr. 
Berridge and Mr. Bomaine in high favor, from whose 
views he did not vary one iota? And why should 
John Wesley leave the Church when Archbishop Til- 
lotson and the Bishop of Lincoln, not to mention a 
score of lesser lights, maintained the Arminian creed 
in its purity? Who is to decide when these high au- 
thorities disagree? Bishop Beveridge for the Calvin. 
'* Life of Porteus, p. 266, note. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 215 



ists, Bishop Porteus for the Arminians, prelate for 
prelate, scholar for scholar, down to the humblest 
curate in the kingdom, we can find them drawn up on 
opposite sides in this great controversy. If Mr. Wes- 
ley dissented from the Church doctrine as Mr. Re- 
main e preached it, the Bishop of Lincoln dissented 
precisely in the same way and to the same extent. 

Construing the Articles of Religion as he did, and 
believing firmly that his construction was the right one, 
and accorded with the intention and meaning of those 
who drew them in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, Mr. 
Wesley was unwilling to proclaim, himself a dissenter, 
because he was not one. He was too well acquainted 
with the history of the Christian Church to believe 
that an independent denomination of Christians could 
be established on the foundation of Church govern- 
ment alone. But above all, he was closely related by 
natural ties to circumstances that acted as a warning 
to him. His grandfather, John Wesley, was a minis- 
ter, and exercised his ministry during that period in 
which an almost infinite diversity of sects produced 
endless confusion in England. He knew that sincer- 
ity was not enough, that piety could give no security 
against the follies of ignorance or the ambition of de- 
signing men. 

When the Episcopal Church was overthrown in En- 
gland Presbyterianism and Independency divided the 
territory among themselves. A Connectional system 
like that of the Presbyterian Church is well adapted 
to preserve unity of creed and uniformity of disci- 
pline. But the Congregational system, whatever may 
be its excellences in other respects, has no safeguards 
against the introduction of conflicting creeds and an- 



216 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



tagonistic doctrines. If every particular Church is 
sovereign, and no other can exercise any species of 
authority over it, there can never be any means of 
protecting the religious world from crude, ill-digested, 
and unscriptural doctrines. The variety of theories 
will become formulated into parties and sects, and as 
long as the simple majority of a congregation sup- 
ports the pastor in his teaching it is impossible to 
check or overthrow any extravagant opinion that may 
arise. Among a people trained to independent thought 
for centuries, as the American people are, this purely 
democratic system of government can preserve itself, 
and may not produce any of the evils indigenous to 
the system elsewhere. But a careful scrutiny of the 
case will show that the governing powers among in- 
dependent Churches are practically the same as in all 
other forms of Church association. Intelligence will 
rule, whether in form or in fact, and a few men will 
devise and plan and direct the great interests of the 
Church, and give strength, stability, and tone to pub- 
lic opinion. 

The want of this intelligent public opinion, the ab- 
sence of educated masses, and especially among the 
Methodists, whose special mission was to the poor, 
caused Mr. Wesley to tremble at the thought of or- 
ganizing an independent Church. So confident was 
Mr. Charles Wesley of the fact that neither the Meth- 
odists of England nor those of America were capable 
of self-government that he predicted speedy ruin to 
follow the organization of the Methodist Church in 
1784. "After my brother's death," said Charles Wes- 
ley, "what will be their end? They will lose all their 
influence and importance; they will turn aside to vain 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 217 



janglings; they will settle again upon their lees; and, 
like other sects of dissenters, come to nothing."* 

We cannot blame him for making this doleful proph- 
ecy. The truth is, self-government in political life and 
self-government in religious life must go hand in hand. 
An endowed Church, established by the State, cannot 
exist for any length of time in a free Commonwealth, 
nor can a self-governing Church prosper in any other 
than a popular civil government. It has been th^ won- 
derful mission of the United States of America to dem- 
onstrate that men can govern themselves and maintain 
a pure Christianity by the power of moral obligations 
only. Monarchy may be but a name, as it certainly is 
now in Great Britain, but it was a great deal more than 
this in the days of Charles Wesley. Neither he nor 
John had a particle of faith in republican principles. 
Great men like Alexander Hamilton, and many un- 
doubted patriots, lived and died in doubt of the per- 
manence of the American Union and a free govern- 
ment in the United States. 

It is not singular, then, that John Wesley desired 
his followers to adhere to the Church. In some of 
his gloomy moments, anticipating his own death, he 
proposed to make the great controversialist, John 
Fletcher, his successor. He thought some one con- 
trolling mind essential to the order, regularity, and 
perpetuity of Methodism. Fletcher went to the skies 
before him, and Wesley was disappointed. But his 
appeals were vehement for adherence to the Church. 
He did not see any more disposition than beforetime 
among Churchmen to help the cause for which he had 
struggled so long and faithfully, but he saw no pros- 
* Memoirs of Charles Wesley, p. 423. 



218 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



pect of deliverance for his people from the agents of 
discord and disintegration. Indeed, if we pass from 
Wesley's own thoughts and feelings to the events 
which followed immediately after his death, we find 
that these fears and doubts were shared by others. 
Many thought that the partiality for Dr. Coke would 
designate him as the leader in those perilous times. 
It is probable that Dr. Coke shared this opinion, and 
from some expressions of his it may have taken the 
form of an expectation. But the British brethren 
lost no time in correcting these mistakes. The man 
whom Wesley had ordained a "superintendent" in 
England was not elected to the presidency of the 
Conference, and Dr. Coke, who expected the same 
office,* was content to take the place -of secretary of 
that body. The Irish brethren, whose Conference he 
had frequently held by Wesley's appointment, had 
already expressed the same sentiment by choosing 
one of their own members to preside in the chair of 
Wesley, The first fortunate, auspicious thing that the 
Wesleyans did after the death of their founder was to 
establish the point, once for all, that there was to be 
no second Wesley. It was a similar feeling that pre- 
vented Mr. Monroe from receiving a unanimous vote 
for the Presidency of the United States. One man 
voted against him because it was desired that no man 
should be paid the compliment which Washington 
alone had received and deserved. John Wesley was 
the Aaron of a religious dispensation, and upon him, 
by the appointment of Divine Providence, there was 
placed a burden which no man can envy except the 
one who knows nothing of its character. 

"^Letter to Bishop Seabury. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 219 



John Wesley was too well acquainted with the awful 
responsibilities connected with power over our fellow- 
men to covet it. He tells us that it was thrust upon 
him, and he was compelled to exercise it or prove rec- 
reant to his duty to God and man. " The power I 
have," he says in a letter to the Rev. Mr. Venn in 
1765, " I never sought. It was the undesired, unex- 
pected result of the work God was pleased to work by 
me. I have a thousand times sought to devolve it on 
others, but as yet I cannot. I therefore suffer it till 
I can find any to ease me of my burden."-* This 
power was never given to him by a vote of any assem- 
bly, and no association of men could confer the same 
authority upon any man. Wesley was siii generis, a 
man who stood alone in his age and country, and he 
was, like his great countryman, the poet of humanity, 
" not for an age, but for all time." 

But the action of the Wesleyans had a precedent 
on this side of the ocean, when the Conference of 
1787 "left Mr. Wesley's name off the minutes." A 
promise of a previous Conference had been misinter- 
preted. After the organization of 1784, Methodism 
in America was a Church and no longer a Society. 
Willing to listen to his advice first among the sons of 
men, they were still in the attitude of independent 
responsibility, and could not yield their convictions 
nor shape their judgments to the will of a man three 
thousand miles away. No matter if he had been every 
thing below an inspired apostle, the right of self- 
government is inseparable from the franchises of a 
free Church. 

Returnin g to the relations existing between the 

Works, vol. xiii., p. 239. 



220 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



Methodists of Virginia and the Episcopalians in 1784, 
we find Dr. Hawks attributing, in great measure, the 
overthrow of the Episcopal Church to what he calls 
the " secession of the Methodists." The chapter of 
history which records " the incorporation of the Epis- 
copal Church in Virginia " in 1784 will reward the 
patient inquirer who investigates it. Dr. Hawks pre- 
sents the principal facts, and his pages will furnish 
our materials. The Legislature had disestablished the 
Episcopal Church. It had gone farther, and pro- 
claimed absolute equality of all creeds and religions. 
All denominations of Christians were on an equal 
footing, and no tax nor tithing system was to be estab- 
lished for any nor for all. Every measure looking 
to these ends received a decided negative. But there 
was not wanting among the Episcopal advocates some 
of the traditional wisdom of the serpent, and it came 
forward accompanied by an apparent spirit of harm- 
lessness, reminding us of the dove. 

"A resolution was reported by the chairman of a 
committee of the whole house on the state of the 
Commonwealth," says Dr. Hawks, " that in the opin- 
ion of the committee acts ought to pass for the incor- 
poration of all societies of the Christian religion which 
may apply for the same; and the resolution was 
adopted by a majority of nearly one-third of the whole 
house. Here again Mr. Henry gave to the measure 
his powerful support; and we learn from his accom- 
plished biographer that his votes on these two meas- 
ures formed the foundation of a charge against Mr, 
Henry of advocating the re establishment of the Prot- 
estant Episcopal Church." * 

* Protestant Episcopal Church in Virginia, p. 159. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 221 



The other measure, alluded to as one of the two 
which formed a charge against Mr. Henry, was the 
proposition to tax all persons for the benefit of those 
Churches for which the tax-payer might choose to des- 
ignate his contribution; and if sums were collected for 
which there was no special designation, they should be 
applied to educational purposes. But this measure 
failed, while the other became a law. No sooner was 
this bill passed, however, than the public awoke to the 
fact that the Legislature had passed a law to endow the 
Episcopal Church, which was yet to be, with all the 
property that had formerly been devoted to Church 
purposes. There was no such organization known in 
law or history at this time as the Protestant Episcopal 
Church in the United States, and therefore, if such a 
Church was to be incorporated, it would exist in Vir- 
ginia alone. The act of incorporation states that this 
Church, "by the name, style, and title afores-aid, they 
and their successors, shall forever lawfully have, hold, 
use, and enjoy all and every tract or tracts of glebe- 
land already purchased, the churches and chapels al- 
ready built, with the burying-grounds belonging to 
them, and such as were contracted for before the first 
day of January, in the year 1777, for the use of the 
parishes, with their hereditaments and appurtenances, 
and all books, plate, and ornaments appropriated to 
the use of, and every other thing the property of, the 
late Established Church, to the sole and only proper 
use and benefit of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
in the parish where the respective ministers and ves- 
tries reside," * etc. This act made the Church a cor- 
jjorate body, capable of suing and being sued, and au- 
*Journals of the Conventions of the P. E. Church in A^irginia, p. 1. 



222 



thorized suits for recovery of all their estates, and 
was, in effect, a re establishment of the Church in the 
place of a favored and privileged denomination. 

"Its passage was hailed with thankfulness," says 
Dr. Hawks, "and a day of brightness seemed about to 
dawn upon the temporal interests of the Church. 
But contemporaneously with the circumstance just 
related an incident occurred which was afterward to 
aid in dissipating the short-lived joy which the incor- 
poration of the Church had occasioned. Up to this 
time the Methodists had continued in alliance with 
the Church, and professed to consider themselves as 
a part of it; but the time had now come for their final 
separation from it." * 

The facts are sadly contradictory to some of the 
statements of the historian. The " incident " to which 
he alludes was the organization of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in December, 1784. This event 
occurred a few weeks after the passage of the act of 
incorporation; and on the 18th of May, 1785, the first 
convention of the clergy and laity in Virginia was 
held in the city of Richmond. Nearly five months 
after the organization of the Methodist Church we 
find the largest assembly of Episcopalians that ever 
met together in Virginia — clergymen and laymen — 
conferring about religious affairs in their State. Do 
they raise the cry of "danger to the Church" from 
the secession of the Methodists ? Do they pass a res- 
olution, or propose one, lamenting the departure of 
four thousand communicants in a body from their 
Church? Do they condescend to notice the matter at 
all, in any shape, manner, or form? In vain do we 

* Protestant Episcopal Church in Virginia, p. 165. 



223 



look through the printed journals to find the slightest 
allusion to such a disaster as the retirement of the 
whole Methodist body from the care of " the Church." 
Alas! no. There are more Episcopal clergymen at 
this convention than will appear again on its muster- 
roll in fifty years. There are thirty-six clergymen, 
and among them the Rev. Devereaux Jarratt, the 
"some of the clergy," and the sole Episcopal entity 
with which Methodism had been in alliance since its 
introduction into Virginia. 

If the reason for this wonderful rally of the Epis- 
copal forces is sought, Dr. Hawks will give it. Speak- 
ing of the act of incorporation, he says: "A pastor, 
conscientiously disposed to discharge his duty, might 
live happily and comfortably under such a law, and 
we hear no complaints made by the clergy of that 
day against its provisions."* This was undoubtedly 
true; andit is none the less true that, whether a pas- 
tor was "conscientiously disposed to discharge his 
duty," or whether he was otherwise minded, there was 
a security for a maintenance to which many of them 
had no moral claim. "After the fall of the Establish- 
ment," says Dr. White, "a considerable proportion of 
the clergy continued to enjoy the glebes — the law con- 
sidering them as freeholds during life — without perform- 
ing a single act of sacred duty, except, perhaps, that of 
marriage. They knew that their services would not 
have been attended." f 

We are not now at a loss to explain the large at- 
tendance of clergymen at the convention of 1785. It 
certainly was not to lament the defection of the Meth- 

* Protestant Episcopal Church in Virginia, p. 165, t Memoirs 
of the Church, p. 82. 



224 



odists, nor to solicit their return to the bosom of "the 
Church." The clerev were aware of the immense 
superiority that had been given them by the act of 
incorporation. They were in a joyful mood, notwith- 
standing Asbury and the itinerant preachers had car- 
ried off several thousands of souls from their watch- 
care into the wilds of "fanaticism " and "enthusiasm." 
Indeed, they were so jubilant over the resuscitation, 
of "the Church," and so utterly indifferent to the 
movements of the Methodists, that they pointedly and 
repeatedly gave their clerical brother, Mr. Jarratt, to 
understand that he was no welcome visitor to their 
convention. He felt the slight, and touched the cold 
shoulder a few times, and then quietly mounted his 
horse and rode home after a few hours' stay in Eich- 
mond. 

One whole week this convention was in session, and 
among other notable things done was the adoption of 
an address to the people of the State who adhered to 
the Episcopal Church. An excellent address it is, 
but not a syllable is to be found there which indicates 
the loss of four thousand Episcopal communicants by 
the secession of the Methodists. The Church had lost 
every thing but the glebes and the affections of the 
people, says the address; and the exhortation to the 
lay brethren is pointed and eloquent. " By the favor 
of Providence, indeed," says the address, "the Prot- 
estant Episcopal Church is incorporated by law, and 
under this sanction are we now assembled." 
c Before twelve months had elapsed " an incident oc- 
, curred which was afterward to aid in dissipating the 
short-lived joy " of the clergy. The incident was the 
excitement that was growing daily more manifest 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



225 



among the masses of the people, and it was exhibit- 
ing itself in petitions for the repeal of the act of in- 
corporation whereby the Episcopal Church was placed 
above the conditions which surrounded other denom- 
inations. The evidences of the unpopularity of the 
measure began to multiply so rapidly that the politi- 
cians took alarm. No matter who did this, whether 
it was the Baptists, the implacable enemies of episco- 
pacy, or the Presbyterians or the newly organized 
Methodist Church, or all of these, together with the 
ungodly men who wished the destruction of all the 
Churches. The fact is plain enough, and it is evi- 
denced by the attendance of only seventeen clergy- 
men at the convention of 1786. The Legislature, in 
the fall of that year, repealed the act of incorporation; 
and at the convention of 1787 only fifteen clergymen 
appeared in answer to their names. If a quorum had 
been recognized, no business could have been trans- 
acted. Now, it surely was not the defection of the 
Methodists which failed to affect the convention the 
year after it occurred, and three years after produced 
so great a falling off. 



Glppfeep XII. 



Efforts of the Methodist Preachers to Keconcile the People to the 
Episcopal Ministers — Failure — Rev. Thomas Ware — Account of 
a Scene in Delaware — Methodists Denounced by a Clergyman — 
Scene in a Church — A Happy Woman — " Bless the Lord for this 
Kind of Enthusiasm " — A Disappointed Rector— Secret of Meth- 
odist Success — Heart-preaching Peaching the Heart — Mr. Jarratt 
the Only Preacher of Instantaneous Conversion and Heart-relig- 
ion — His Success — Bishop Watson on the Influence of the Holy 
Spirit — Dangerous Doctrine — Approach to Deism — Proofs of Mor- 
al Reformation — Dr. White Accuses Wesley of " Enthusiasm " — • 
No Divine Call to the Ministry— Simply a Profession— White on 
Inspiration— Only Two Passages in the New Testament— A Bar- 
ren Faith— Colton on Proselytism— The Bishop of Oxford— Rest- 
less W T aters "Emigrating" Toward the Church— Proofs— Statis- 
tics of Massachusetts and Connecticut. 



'HAT the early Methodist preachers did every 



1 thing in their power to bring the Episcopal cler- 
gy into cooperation with them has been clearly shown. 
At almost every Conference from 1773 to 1784, a 
pointed exhortation was sent forth to the people — an 
exhortation which every man was expected to enforce 
by precept and example. In various forms it empha- 
sized adherence to the Church and attendance upon 
the sacraments administered by Episcopal hands. 
But how w^as this patience and loyalty to the "old 
Church" rewarded? By insult, ridicule, and misrep- 
resentation. We have already seen that there was but 
one clergyman who gave any assistance or encourage- 
ment to Asbury and his company of itinerants. No 
opportunity w^as lost on the part of the "clergy" to 




A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 227 



bring these men into derision and contempt among 
the people. 

The proofs of this statement are abundant. From 
one who was an eye-witness to the facts related the 
following characteristic narrative is taken. The Kev. 
Thomas Ware was present at the Conference held in 
Baltimore in the spring of 1784. He began his itin- 
erant career at that time, and it was in the fall of the 
year — in the month of September— that the scene oc- 
curred to which the reader's attention is directed. No 
intelligence had been received from Mr. Wesley. No 
one could tell what his decision would be in regard to 
the administration of the sacraments. Whether the 
establishment of the independence of the United 
States would effect any change in the relation of the 
Societies to their brethren in England could only be a 
subject of conjecture. There were, doubtless, some 
persons who anticipated a radical change, but precise- 
ly what it was to be no man could foretell. The hand 
of Providence was guiding both sections of Method- 
ism through dark and intricate paths into the sunlight 
of peace and prosperity. While this state of suspense 
lasted, Mr. Ware gives us a specimen of the animus 
of "the clergy" toward the Methodists and their 
work: 

"In September of this year (1784) I was at the 
house of a member of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church whose wife was a Methodist. In conversation 
with him, he remarked that he had some hope of see- 
ing the old Church resuscitated. ' The people,' said 
he, 'are gathering about our long-forsaken Church. 
A clergyman direct from England is to preach a trial 
sermon, and will probably be settled among us. Come, 



228 The High-chitrchman Disarmed: 



will you go to hear him? He is said to be very 
learned.' I told him I had come to spend the day 
with him, and should be pleased to go and hear the 
stranger. I accordingly went, and for the first time 
heard the divine, exclusive, and unchangeable right 
of prelacy preached up, but not, as I thought, very 
skillfully. The parable of the good Samaritan was 
the theme of the discussion. The preacher made the 
man who fell among thieves to mean Adam; the good 
Samaritan, Christ; the inn, the Church, into which 
bleeding humanity was brought to be bound up and 
healed; and the two pence given to the host, the sac- 
raments of baptism and the Lord's Supper." 

"'But who,' said the preacher, 'is the host, the 
keeper of the inn, to whom the two pence were giv- 
en ? This is the main thing to which our attention is 
called.' Here, he added, he hesitated not to say, fear- 
less of successful contradiction, that the apostles were 
the prelates of the primitive Church, and that dio- 
cesan bishops were their successors; that to them ap- 
pertained the exclusive right of ordination, confirma- 
tion, and government; and that this order was un- 
changeable, having for its author and foundation 
Christ and his apostles. 'These things,' said he, 'be- 
ing unquestionably true, having the seal of the Church 
whose infallibility is tested by Christ when he says, 
" The gates of hell shall not prevail against it," it fol- 
lows, of course, that fallen humanity has never been 
by Heaven intrusted to any claiming to be clergymen 
who cannot trace their ministerial succession from, the 
apostles.' 

"These assumptions he endeavored to support by 
quoting some authorities and pouring out a flood of 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



invective upon enthusiasm . 'It was,' he said, 'under 
the magic influence of enthusiasm that some men of 
distinction in the Church had given up diocesan epis- 
copacy as apostolic,' and he admitted that the infatu- 
ation had at times become general though not univer- 
sal. Tor, had it been so,' said he, 'the gates of hell 
would have prevailed, the declaration of Christ to the 
contrary notwithstanding. John Wesley,' he contin- 
ued, 'was the prince of enthusiasts. He with his bab- 
blers, as Eowland Hill calls them, has rilled England 
with enthusiasts. And mark! No stream can rise 
higher than its source; consequently, the preaching 
of the Methodists can only kindle an enthusiastic 
flame— a mere ignis fatuus — in any one.' As he thus 
expressed himself, a very interesting, pious female 
cried out: 'Glory to God! if what I now feel be enthu- 
siasm, let me always be an enthusiast! ' 

" This was a quietus, and threw the clergyman into 
serious embarrassment, as it was too evident not to be 
perceived by all that this rebuke from a lady highly 
esteemed for her accomplishments and piety was ap- 
proved by the congregation generally as justly merit- 
ed. But he had gone too far to retreat, or even to 
make an apology; and if he had been disposed to do 
the one or the other, there was still a serious difficulty 
— it was not ivritten. So he hesitated before entering 
upon his third head, which was to note the literal 
meaning of the two pence mentioned in the text; but 
he ventured to proceed, and said this, in his opinion, 
referred to the support -of the clergy, which he did 
think was more in accordance with the order of God 
in England than in America. At this allusion his 
audience evidently manifested much dissatisfaction. 



230 



The liigli-eliurcliman Disarmed: 



They were not in a state of mind, at that juncture, to 
bear such comparisons between the institutions of the 
two countries. The union of Church and State, which 
was evidently implied in the allusion, had no advo- 
cates in this country except among the disaffected; 
and especially not here, as the people were imbued 
with the principles of the Revolution. He could, 
therefore, hardly have uttered any thing more offen- 
sive to their feelings. 

"After the sermon was over a conference was held 
with the preacher, which soon terminated. Of what 
transpired I was informed by one of the officers of 
the Church, with whom I was acquainted. In nar- 
rating the facts he said: 'Having been a vestryman, 
it fell on me to open the business. This I did by in- 
forming his reverence that I feared we should net be 
able to give him a very liberal call: that the Method- 
ists were numerous and the preachers generally ac- 
ceptable, so that, if they had been in orders, there 
would hardly have been a serious Churchman left. 
He was then requested to name the sum we must 
pay in order to secure his services, which he did. 
He was informed, however, that so large an amount 
could not be raised; but, as he was single, and his 
perquisites would be considerable, and as he had said 
we were perishing for lack of knowledge, we expressed 
a hope that he would think of the case, and lay en us 
as light a burden as possible.' The gentleman then 
stated that fifty dollars a year was all he was will- 
ing to pay for the support of the gospel -twenty-five 
to the Methodists and twenty-five to the Church— 
and added, addressing himself to the minister: 'But 
for cue, sir, I must toll yen my mind freely. I 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 231 



do not much admire your preaching nor your spir- 
it. My wife is a Methodist, and she is no more an 
enthusiast than your reverence. Such preaching, 
sir, will drive the people from the Church.' At 
this the preacher appeared agitated, and remarked: 
' I did say many Churchmen in America, I feared, 
were perishing for lack of knowledge, and here we 
have an evidence of the truth of it, Here is a vestry- 
man who places Methodist preachers, the propagators 
of enthusiasm, on an equality with the divinely au- 
thorized clergy of the Church of England. From 
him I will receive nothing.' 'Pray, sir,' said another 
gentleman interrupting him, 'we cannot divorce our 
wives and turn our daughters out-of-doors because 
they have joined the Methodists. There are but two 
clergymen on this whole peninsula, and one of these 
is a drunkard. I have been a Church-warden in an- 
other State, and have often said I would never leave 
the Church, but I had much rather hear a Method- 
ist preach than a drunken Churchman.' ' Pardon me, 
sir,' said the parson; 'do you think I am a drunkard? 
I perceive you mean to insult me. But we will make 
the matter short. I have told you for what I would 
serve you, and I now say plainly that you may perish 
for all me before I will serve you for any thing less.' 
On hearing this they all silently retired, leaving the 
priest intoxicated with passion, as -some thought, if 
nothing else." * 

This incident reveals the secret of Episcopal fail- 
ure and of Methodist success in the early days of the 
republic. The people were sufficiently intelligent to 
choose their own Church relations, and they chose 
* Memoir of Kev. Thos. Ware, pp. 88-93. 



232 



The High-char chman Disarmed: 



them in the fear of God. Names were nothing; an- 
tiquities were nothing. No cathedrals supported by 
the tax-payers of the country dazzled the eyes or 
charmed the senses of the plain, unpretending repub- 
licans of America. When awakened by the Spirit of 
God, they desired to be saved from the wrath to come, 
and they fled to Christ as a sure and present; refuge 
for the sinner. They found the pearl of great price, 
and rejoiced exceedingly in their heavenly riches. 
The Methodist preachers taught a free salvation. No 
arbitrary decrees of God beclouded his mercy or ren- 
dered his goodness questionable. They taught a pres- 
ent salvation. There was no need to wait a day nor 
an hour; not one moment—" To-day is the day of sal- 
vation;" "Now is the accepted time." They taught a 
salvation that could be felt and known. It was not a 
misty, doubtful, halting, half-hearted hope. It was 
a firm, true, strong, divine persuasion that "Jesus 
died for me? and that " by faith in him / am saved 
now." 

The Episcopal clergymen, always excepting Mr. 
J arratt, did not preach after this fashion. They were 
very much afraid of "excitements," of "animal feel- 
ings," of "fanaticism," and of "enthusiasm." They 
seldom missed an opportunity to caution their people 
against the "extravagances" of the Methodists. Un- 
til the advent of the Episcopal revivalist— Bishop 
Moore, of Virginia — the churches of the Episcopal 
denomination were strangers to any scenes akin to 
the "revival meetings" of the Methodists. Nor is 
this surprising. The most distinguished men on the 
Episcopal bench in England gave forth uncertain 
sounds upon the gospel-trumpet. To take only one 



283 



example, let the ease of Richard Watson, Bishop of 
Landaff, suffice to illustrate the . " conservatism " of 
the moderate Churchmen of that day. Bishop Wat- 
son, in his reply to Gibbon, rendered a service to 
Christianity which was surpassed only by his reply to 
Thomas Paine. The 1 'Apology for the Bible " is still 
a text-book for young ministers, and richly deserves 
its popularity. But the tenderness which he exhibit- 
ed toward the author of the " Decline and Fall** has 
raised a doubt of his earnestness if not of his sincer- 
ity. It is doing him a wrong to charge him with dis- 
affection to the cause which he advocated with so 
much gracefulness of style and wealth of learning. 
Nevertheless, if we are to judge his religious experi- 
ence by his opinions expressed late in life, there is no 
longer any mystery concerning his want of animation 
and self-respect in his dealings with the great histo- 
rian. Bishop Watson was not an unbeliever, like Gib- 
bon, but of how much value was that religion which 
he describes in the tract which was sold in editions of 
ten thousand copies? Who can read these words 
without a feeling of. painful surprise? 

<; The Holy Spirit, we know, gave his assistance in 
an extraordinary manner to the first preachers of the 
gospel, and they were sure of his dwelling in them by 
the power of speaking with new tongues, and by the 
other gifts which he distributed to them. We think 
we have the authority of Scripture for saying that 
God still continues to work in us hoth to will and to do 
of his good pleasure; to give his Holy Spirit to them 
that a^k him; but the manner in which the Holy 
Spirit gives his assistance to faithful and pious per- 
sons is not attended with any certain signs of its be- 



234 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



ing given. It is secret and unknown. You cannot 
distinguish the working by which he helpeth your in- 
firmities from the ordinary operations of your own 
minds."* 

There is nothing in Gibbon's "Decline and Fall"' 
as destructive to the Christian Church and to Chris- 
tianity as these words of a professed minister of the 
gospel. If we cannot distinguish between the work- 
ing of the Holy Spirit and the ordinary operations of 
our own minds, then the religion of Christ is of no 
more value to the world than the vagaries of Buddha 
or the speculations of Mohammed. Bishop Horsley, 
and others, pointed out the radical errors in this tract, 
but Bishop Watson defended his position, and per- 
mitted these melancholy words to go upon record only 
a short time before his death: 

" I am uot ashamed to own that I give a greater de- 
gree of assent to the doctrine of the extraordinary op- 
eration of the Spirit in the age of the apostles than I 
do to that of his immediate influence, either by illu- 
mination or sanctification, in succeeding ages. Not- 
withstanding this confession, I am not prepared to 
say that the latter is an un scriptural doctrine. Fut- 
ure investigation may clear up this point; and God, I 
trust, will pardon me an indecision of judgment pro- 
ceeding from an inability of comprehension. If it 
shall ever be shown that the doctrine of the ordinary 
operation of the Holy Ghost is not a Scripture doc- 
trine, Methodism, Quakerism, and every degree of en- 
thusiasm, will be radically extinguished in the Chris- 
tian Church. Men, no longer believing that God does 
that by more means which may be done by fewer, will 
^-Anecdotes of the Life of Bishop Watson, p. 195. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



235 



wholly rely for religious instruction, consequent conver- 
sion, and subsequent salvation on his word." * 

This extraordinary passage reveals a state of mind 
that can scarcely be distinguished from that of the 
deist. If the preaching of the gospel is a purely in- 
tellectual exercise, and religious instruction results in 
conversion, precisely as any resolution may be formed 
for the abandonment of an evil habit, by the operation 
of the human will, unaided by the Holy Spirit, what 
then is the subsequent "salvation? " From what is a 
man saved, and by what? From sin by his fellow- 
sinner, or by the operations of his own mind? This 
cheerless creed exceeds the most extravagant hypoth- 
esis that has ever been branded with the name of Pe- 
lagianism. The Church is a school of morality in 
which nothing but the power of the human intellect is 
to be sought or found! 

Is it remarkable that such "instruction " as that did 
not satisfy the souls of honest Churchmen in those 
periods that have been called "great awakenings?" 
Is it astonishing that sinners pierced to the heart by 
the arrows of conviction should seek the men who 
pointed them to the " Lamb of God, which taketh away 
the sin of the world?" If Bishop Watson doubted 
whether there was any divine power in the gospel, any 
influence of the Holy Ghost in the Church, there 
were scores and hundreds and thousands, and not a 
few of as great men as he, who could testify, and did 
testify, to the world that the Holy Spirit had arrested 
them as sinners, had turned their night into day, and 
had given them the comforts of a high, holy, and 
preciou s hope of eternal life in Christ Jesus. There 
"-Anecdote* of the Life of Bishop Watson, pp. 105, 196. 



236 



The Iligh-churchmdn Disarmed: 



were instances of conversion as wonderful as that of 
Saul. There were gifts of God's Spirit as remarkable 
as the gift of tongues, and there were as certain proofs 
of God's presence among his people as there were on 
the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem. 

Notwithstanding a thousand proofs of moral refor- 
mation that followed the preaching of the Methodists, 
the leaders in the Protestant Episcopal Church did 
not fail to discourage and discountenance the work of 
these men of God. That Dr. White held the view of 
the operations of the Holy Spirit entertained by Bish- 
op Watson is capable of the clearest evidence. Hold- 
ing these views, what fellowship could there be between 
those who believe that the Holy Spirit is the Divine 
Comforter, the unerring Guide into all truth, and 
those who deny any divine influence upon the soul 
that can be distinguished from the action of human 
reason ? 

The conduct of Dr. White is aggravated by the super- 
cilious style in ^yhich he refers to Mr. Wesley and his 
followers: "In the lives of Mr. John Wesley and Mr. 
George Whitefield you may perceive much of their con- 
duct and of their preaching to have been the result of 
impressions which they acknowledged with grief in the 
later period of their lives." * Would it not appear to 
be in accordance with the principles of Christian truth- 
fulness if tha preaching which was "the result of im- 
pressions" — whatever that may mean — should be 
pointed out in the works of Mr. Wesley? Is it hon- 
est and upright conduct in a minister of the gospel to 
assert that "much of the conduct and of the preach- 
ing" of Mr. Wesley "was acknowledged with grief" 
*Life of Bishop White, p. 412. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 237 



in his later years, without furnishing one scintilla of 
evidence from Mr. Wesley himself either to prove the 
commission of the error or his subsequent sorrow and 
grief on account of it? On what page of his works, 
in what letter to a friend, in what authentic writing, is 
it recorded by Mr. Wesley that he repented the con- 
duct and preaching which were the results of " im- 
pressions? " 

Dr. White, in striving to prove that there is no di- 
vine call to the ministry, says: "Both of these men 
confided in an inward call to preach doctrines directly 
opposed to those taught by the people called Quakers, 
and yet how many of these latter carry on their work 
on the same 'persuasion of immediate illumination. It is 
not intended to speak of either of these descriptions 
of people with disrespect or with doubt of their sin- 
cerity. But what a strange representation do they 
conjointly give of the Divine Being, as if his inspira- 
tion were the source of opposite persuasions respect- 
ively possessing them! that there rested on them the 
duty of traversing countries with conflicting declara- 
tions of his will! " * 

"It is not intended to speak with disrespect" of the 
"description of people" to which Dr. White belonged, 
but it is greatly to be lamented that a man of his po- 
sition in the Church should hazard a statement which 
must be attributed either to malice or to ignorance. 
If he had read Mr. Wesley's writings— even the sadly 
marred and imperfect edition before the public in 
their author's life-time— Dr. White must have known 
that neither Mr. AVesley nor any trusted follower of 
his ever laid any the most remote, claim to the spe- 

* Life of Bishop White, p. 413. 



238 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



cies of "inspiration" here attributed to the Quakers. 
If Dr. White's theology had been as far removed from 
deism as Mr. Wesley's was from the vagaries of "il- 
luminated" enthusiasts, the struggle for life of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in America would have 
been less protracted and uncertain. No duty of " trav- 
ersing countries" possessed the consciences of the 
clergymen of Dr. White's communion. They had no 
"signs following" their ministry, and the reason is 
unfolded in the language of the Philadelphia patri- 
arch : 

"I will briefly state what I take to be the script- 
ural doctrine of inspiration, although it will be only 
a repetition of what I gave in a former correspond- 
ence. Our Saviour, before he left the world, gave to 
his disciples the promise of an extraordinary agent, 
who should guide them into all truth and bring all 
things to remembrance, and, further, should endow 
them with power from on high. That the inspirations 
of this agent thus promised are not the same as the 
teachings of a monitor alleged to be within all men is 
evident from there being the precise date of the com- 
mencement of the former and from the ceasing of 
their attendant powers after the apostolic age. On 
there being put out of view all the passages of Script- 
ure appropriate to this subject, you will find none from 
which we are tear ranted to affirm the influences of the 
Holy Spirit in ourselves other than such as appear in 
Galatians v. 21 and Ephesians v. 9." * 

The "doctrine of inspiration" — that is to say, the 
doctrine of a divine influence guiding the pen of the 
writer or the tongue of the speaker, so that both of 



*Life of Bishop White, p. 413. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 239 



.these persons are infallibly secured against any error 
in the matter of their teaching— is one thing, and the 
influence of the Holy Spirit in convicting, converting, 
and sanctifying the human soul is quite another thing. 
If Dr. White supposed that Mr. Wesley claimed the 
" inspiration " of the apostolic age, it was owing to Dr. 
Whites ignorance of Mr. Wesley and of his writings. 
Else it is a case of grave, deliberate misrepresenta- 
tion. Mr. Wesley taught, and his followers at this 
day teach, that whatever was necessary in the agency 
of the Spirit to the conversion of a soul in the days 
of the apostles is necessary in this age, for human 
nature is unchanged. Mr. Wesley taught, and Meth- 
odists teach to-day, that the first step of a penitent 
sinner toward the kingdom of heaven is preceded by 
the work of the Holy Spirit upon his heart in convict- 
ing, enlightening grace. Mr. Wesley taught, and we 
teach, that the plan of salvation is the same to-day 
that it was when the evangelist wrote these memora- 
ble words: "He came unto his own, and his own re- 
ceived him not. But as many as received him, to 
them gave he power to become the sons of God, even 
to them that believe on his name; which were born, 
not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the 
will of man, but of God." (John i. 11-13.) Mr. Wes- 
ley taught that the words of St. Paul to the Koreans 
are the property of men and women in this age, and 
will continue to be a precious word of promise until 
the end of time: "For ye have not received the spirit 
of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the 
Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that 
we are the children of God; and if children, then heirs; 



240 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if so be 
that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified 
together." (Kom. viii. 15-17.) 

Dr. White knew of only two passages in the New 
Testament applicable to ourselves — only two passages 
in which "we are warranted to affirm the influences 
of the Holy Spirit in ourselves." These are Galatians. 
v. 22: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, 
long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith." Here, in 
the midst of a sentence, he stops. Why " meekness 
and temperance " are excluded from Dr. White's cata- 
logue we are not informed. The other passage is 
Ephesians v. 9: "For the fruit of the Spirit is in all 
goodness and righteousness and truth." If we are to 
treat Dr. White's assertion in the light of serious ar- 
gument, the question arises at once, If these virtues 
in the Christian soul are the fruits of the Spirit- 
that is to say, the effects of which the Holy Spirit is 
the cause — is it possible that an intelligent, reasonable 
being can have the knowledge of an effect without ex- 
perience of the cause? If the Spirit of God works 
in us to will and to do of his good pleasure, is it im- 
possible for us to know that the Holy Spirit is thus at 
work in our hearts? " He that believeth on the Son of 
God hath the witness in himself." (1 John v. 10.) 
What witness is this ? Of our own spirit? Then the 
declaration of Paul supplements that with the asser- 
tion which is as strong as the throne of the Eternal: 
"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit." 

Only two passages "from which we are warranted 
to affirm the influences of the Holy Spirit in our- 
selves!" Alas! if these be all that have descended 
through the "apostolical succession" to the clergy- 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 241 



men of Dr. White's school, we can understand some 
statements which are otherwise but dubiously ex- 
plained. " The religious culture of the people of the 
United States hitherto," says the Kev. Calvin Colton 
in the " Genius and Mission of the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church in the United States," "has been chiefly 
done by other hands than those of the American Epis- 
copal Church, and it would be equally in derogation 
of fact and justice not to admit that this culture has 
been of great value and importance. What would the 
United States have been at this moment without it ? 
But a small remove from heathenism. ... In the 
present defective mode of Church education— pity it 
is so— one may be born in the Church and grow up in 
it without knowing why he is a Churchman. But he 
who comes from without comes for reasons which he 
understands and which he will never forget. He 
feels an interest in the study of the subject, and is 
sure to continue it." * This refreshingly candid and 
genial writer tells us that "by much the largest part 
of the additions to the Episcopal Church" comes by 
proselytism from other Churches. "And they consti- 
tute some of the best members of the Church," he 
says, " because they never come without having con- 
sidered the subject and learned the reasons." There- 
fore, as he interprets Providence, "we shall yet have 
occasion to see that one of the grand providential 
purposes of the mission of the American Episcopal 
Church is to gather in and absorb the religious ele- 
ments already furnished to her hand!" The more 
good these "denominations" do, the ingenuous writer 
tells us, "so much greater are the chances of the 
* Genius of the Church, pp. 273, 274. 

1G 



242 



The High -churchman D isa rmed: 



American Episcopal Church. They are furnishing 
materials everywhere for her to build up with! " 

So, it appears, having banished the doctrine of the 
regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit from her 
pulpits and given it over to "the sects," the legatee 
of "apostolical" powers must depend upon other 
Churches to supply herself with members. A barren 
Church, that cannot bring forth sons and daughters 
to the Lord of hosts, must needs glory in the fact 
that she can pick up here and there a few waifs and 
strays from other fields! So far from imitating the 
apostle Paul, who was careful to avoid building on 
"another man's foundation," " this description of peo- 
ple" rejoices in becoming a refuge for all the malcon- 
tents in Christendom. 

In that singular work which the author has been 
pleased to call a "History of the Protestant Episco- 
pal Church in America," the Bishop of Oxford, thank- 
ful for any favor, takes the gossip of somebody's 
"Letters from America" as authority for some very 
extraordinary statements. " Nowhere have the rest- 
less waters of the multitude of sects tossed themselves 
in wilder madness than in the New World," says Bish- 
op Wilber force. He sees a tremendous movement 
setting in, and the ark of the Church rides triumph- 
antly upon the waves. With a proclivity for mixed 
metaphors that sets criticism at defiance, he says: 
"So far, indeed, does this migration prevail that no 
fewer than one-half of the existing clergy, and even 
of the bishops themselves, have been won over from 
the sects. And this process seems still to be extend- 
ing. At Boston there is now a striking revulsion of 
feeling toward the Church, of whose exclusively apos- 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



248 



tolical constitution many of the ministers amongst 
the sects are now convinced. Their present position 
seems to be one which honest men cannot long con- 
sent to occupy. They admit the doctrine of the visi- 
ble Church and the apostolical succession, and conse- 
quently the schism of which the original founders of 
their sect were guilty, but claim prescription as effac- 
ing the flaw in the original deed." * 

Nearly forty years have passed away since the Bish- 
op of Oxford wrote these words of exhortation for the 
benefit of the convicted but not yet converted minis- 
ters of Boston. The Episcopal Church has been rep- 
resented there by some of her most gifted men; but 
they have not been able to subdue the multitudes, nor 
have the people shown a disposition to accord an "ex- 
clusively apostolical constitution" to the Episcopal 
denomination. In 1882 the Episcopalians had twenty- 
one churches and a little more than five thousand four 
hundred communicants in the city of Boston. The 
Methodist Episcopal Church had twenty-three church- 
es and over five thousand seven hundred communi- 
cants in the same city. In the State of Massachu- 
setts, in 1882, the Protestant Episcopal Church re- 
ports eighteen thousand and seventy-six communi- 
cants, while the Methodist Episcopal Church shows 
her number of communicants in excess of thirty-eight 
thousand. In a population exceeding one million 
eight hundred thousand, the Episcopalians are repre- 
sented by one person out of twenty-five in the State 
and the Methodists by one in twelve, if we estimate 
three friends of the Church for every person who is 

'-History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America, by the 
Bishop of Oxford, p. 407. 



241 The Bigli-cliu'rchman Disarmed: 

an actual communicant. It is not, then, to the figures 
of the census that we can turn to prove the triumph- 
ant march of apostolical succession in Boston and the 
State of Massachusetts. 

The clerical historian is sadly betrayed by other 
untrustworthy statements, gathered from sources 
which he has not recorded. He says: "In Connecti- 
cut her roots took a deeper hold in the soil from the 
action of the storms amongst which she had grown 
up. In no part of America was her communion so 
pure and apostolical as here. Her clergy were for the 
most part natives— men of earnest piety, of settled 
character, and well established in Church principles 
—and so greatly did she flourish that at the outbreak 
of the troubles which ended in the separation of the 
colonies and mother country, there was every reason 
for believing that another term of twenty years' pros- 
perity such as she had last enjoyed would have 
brought full half of the population of the State with- 
in her bosom." * 

This statement is in absolute contradiction to the 
testimony of Dr. White and the biographer of Bishop 
Griswold. It was doubtless true that the personal 
characters of the clergy were more "respectable," to 
use Dr. White's term, than those of the "Established " 
clergy in Maryland and Virginia. The influence of a 
Puritan community, and the wholesome watchfulness 
of other denominations, made this essential to the ex- 
istence of the Episcopal society. But it is absurd to 
say that the Church was in a prosperous condition 
when there was not a self-supporting parish in the 
colony. If the voluntary plan could not be relie d 
* History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America, p. 126. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 245 



upon, the colonial tax-receiver appropriated the 
Church-tax paid by Episcopalians to their own pas- 
tors. Therefore, if in no instance this tax amounted 
to a sum sufficient to support a parish minister, the 
poverty of the people or the fewness of their number 
must explain the deficiency. The Episcopal Church 
in this country has always represented an undue pro- 
portion of the wealth of the people. " It is the relig- 
ion of the affluent and the respectable; but by it, as 
yet, the gospel is not largely preached to the poor."' 
These are the words of Bishop Wilberforce, and they 
are still words of reproof applicable to this Church 
in America. If there was not one self-supporting 
parish in Connecticut, how small was the probability 
of gaining half of the State in twenty years! 

The Bishop has unearthed a " contemporary writer" 
who attempts to form a list of the denominations in 
Connecticut at the beginning of the war. Out of two 
hundred and ninety-one "sectarian congregations" 
the Episcopalians have seventy-three. Ten years 
later Dr. Seabury estimated them at only forty con- 
gregations of one thousand each, or forty thousand 
population. This was either a great exaggeration or 
the Episcopal Church has failed to keep pace with the 
growth of the population in Connecticut. The popu- 
lation in 17S5 did not exceed two hundred thousand; 
in 1SS0 it was six hundred and twenty-two thousand. 
If there were forty thousand Episcopalians in a pop- 
ulation of two hundred thousand, there was, or ought 
to have been, a commuuion list of not less than ten 
thousand, or one-fourth of the whole number friendly 
to the Church. An increase of more than two hun- 
dred per cent, would bring the number of communi- 



The Righ-churchman Disarmed: 



cants in 1882 to more than thirty-two thousand, while 
the Journal reports only twenty thousand nine hun- 
dred and fifty-three in that year. From every point 
of view, then, we have sought and have nowhere found 
a plea for boasting. The truth stands beyond the 
reach of successful challenge that the development 
and prosperity of the Episcopal Church in America 
have always been in proportion to the degree in which 
her pulpits approximate to the soul-cheering gospel 
proclaimed by "the people called Methodists." 



GhapteP XIII. 

£>r. Seabury's Career — Divisions and Troubles — Open War Probable 
— Resolution of New York Diocese against Dr. Seabury— What 
was his Status ?— Bishop White's Tactics — Senior Bishop — Irrev- 
erent Illustration — Objections to his Ordination — "I am the 
Church" — Seabury and the Methodists — Ignorance of Methodism 
— Ordination of White and Provoost— Articles of Keligion — 
Three Bishops Necessary to Ordain a Bishop — Two Conventions- 
Proposed Union — Expenses of Ordination in England— Three 
Bishops in America: Seabury, White, and Provoost — Irregu- 
lar Succession — Meeting of the Scotch and English Lines — Sea- 
bury's Ordination could not be Recognized at Canterbury — Fear 
of Offending the English Bishops — Shrewd Plans — Seabury the 
Unnecessary Man in an Ordination — His " Succession " Lost — 
Samuel Connecticut' 5 has his Coal Quenched — Dr. Seabury in 
1789 receiving Half-pay as a Chaplain in a Tory Regiment. 

THE career of Dr. Seabury forms one of the most 
difficult problems in the history of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church. That he brought into the councils 
of the Episcopal denomination a most delicate and 
dangerous question is admitted by all parties. As an 
American citizen, born in the colonies, his political 
opinions were offensive to the great majority of his 
countrymen. Yet no one is disposed to censure him 
'for his royalist politics. It was quite natural for a 
man supported by the British purse to take the Brit- 
ish side in the quarrel. This fact alone would not 
have subjected him to material injury if, by reason of 
his attachment to the English Liturgy, he had not 
been compelled to take the side of the King in every 
public service he held. Dr. White and his colleagues 

(247) 



218 



Tl i e Hiyh -ch i ( } -ch man Disarm ed . 



m Philadelphia on the 4th of July, 1776, resolved to 
omit the prayer for the King. This was the test of 
American loyalty, of loyalty to republican principles. 

But the amazing fact in the life of Dr. Seabury is 
that he, a Tory, should presume to solicit from a for- 
eign power spiritual jurisdiction over American repub- 
licans. ^ If he had done this openly, if he had called 
a public meeting or convention of the Episcopal 
Churches, as Dr. White afterward did, it was open to 
the people of the Episcopal faith in Connecticut to se- 
lect him as their bishop if they were so disposed. But 
there was no such convention, no such election. Ten 
royalists (some of them about to fly from the country 
whose cause they had antagonized) met in a secret 
conclave and concocted a plan whereby a notorious 
partisan, an enemy to American independence, was to 
be advanced to the chief place in the Church. This 
conduct admits of no defense. It was not a whit more 
honorable than the secret career of Talbot and Wel- 
ton with their non-juring "orders." "The wretched 
maxims of that abandoned set of men,"* the Non- 
jurors, are forgotten, and, failing to entrap the English 
hierarchy, the persistent candidate turns to the Scotch 
schismatics, and from them, in a private dwelling- 
house, in violation of the civil law of the land, receives 
a gift which was not in the possession of the giver. 
What right had the "Primus" of the Scotch Non- 
jurors to make a bishop for a Church in America? No 
more than Mr. Gladstone has to make a President of 
the United States. If the absurdities of " apostolical 
succession" required somebody to do this, so much 
the worse for the miscalled "succession." If the Epis- 

* Wilberforce: History of the Protestant Episcopal Church, p. 117. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 249 



copalians of America chose to enslave themselves to 
an absurdity which no man can, by logic or by history, 
exalt into a truth, the greater is the pity for them. 
But the result is a very instructive commentary upon 
the law of charity. The first generation of Protestant 
Episcopalians were greatly exercised by this affair of 
Dr. Seabury. They did not know what to do with 
him. He was here with a set of " orders " for which 
they had no liking. Whether "apostolical" or not, 
they did not like him, and his "succession" was a 
matter of grave, invincible doubt. 

At the first it seemed that open war must ensue. 
" So strong, indeed, was the feeling entertained against 
him in the diocese of New York," says the biographer 
of Bishop Hobart, "that in the convention that fol- 
lowed his return in 1786 its closing resolution runs as 
follows: 'Resolved, That the persons appointed to rep- 
resent this Church (in general convention) be in- 
structed not to consent to any act that may imply the 
validity of Dr. Seabury's ordinations.'"* This was 
certainly a severe reproof administered to the two 
brethren of New York who had indorsed Dr. Seabury 
— Messrs. Inglis and Moore. The former had left the 
country, however, and the latter submitted quietly. 
But the brethren in Connecticut received Dr. Seabury 
with joy, Dr. McVickar tells us. As it was a favorite 
tenet of Dr. Seabury that the laity had nothing to do 
with the government of the Church, it is easy to see 
why the ten men who sent Dr. Seabury to England 
should rejoice at his return. The laymen, having no 
voice in the matter, are not consulted. The ten Tory 
clergymen were pleased with the result of their 
*Life of Hobart, p. 87. 



250 



Tlte High-churchman Disarmed: 



scheme. They had outwitted Dr. White, and their 
Tory chaplain was preferred before the chajjlain of a 
republican Congress. 

The Memoirs of Bishop White will furnish us with 
much information in our efforts to solve this enigma. 
What was the status of Dr. Seabury after his ordina- 
tion by the Non-jurors of Scotland? The " Table of 
Contents" of this book emits the name of Seabury, 
and chronicles the consecration of White and Pro- 
voost. This fact is significant. It is a singular veri- 
fication of the adage, " The first shall be last, and the 
last first." If Seabury was a bishop at all, he was the 
first bishop; if not that, he was no bishop. But he is 
not placed at the head of the organization. Even the 
biographer of Bishop Hobart thrusts Dr. Seabury in- 
to the background. After chronicling the arrival of 
Bishops White and Provoost in Xew York on April 
8, 1787, he says: "May we not in truth say, without 
the charge of superstition, that it was a notable coin- 
cidence that thus brought to the American Church the 
most precious boon which man could give, at the very 
moment of their being assembled in God's house to 
thank him for the greatest of his own heavenly gifts? 
It was in truth, as it were, a resurrection. Then for 
the first time stood forth the Protestant Episcopal 
Church in America vitally organized, an independent 
and integral portion of the Catholic apostolic Church 
of Christ."* 

It does savor of superstition, in the judgment of 
many, to connect the arrival of two men ordained bv 
an Act of Parliament with the resurrection of the Lord 
Jesus and th e unspeakable gift of the Son of God as 
"""Life of Hobart, p. 92. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



251 



the Saviour of men. But, if tbe Church was net 
''vitally organized" until then, what becomes of 
Bishop Seabury's episcopate ? For more than two 
years he had been in America, exercising, in a limited 
way, his authority. Twenty-five or thirty gentlemen 
had received the orders of deacon and presbyter, or 
"priest, 1 ' as prelatists prefer to call the second grade 
in the ministry. Was there no "boon" in the pres- 
ence of Dr. Seabury? 

Dr. White mentions the arrival of Seabury with his 
usual diplomatic caution. Two or three gentlemen 
from the Southern States had received ordination from 
Dr. Seabury's hands. "Nevertheless the members of 
this convention (1785), although generally impressed 
with sentiments of respect toward the new bishop, and 
although, with the exception of a few, alleging noth- 
ing against the validity of his episcopacy, thought it 
the most proper to direct their views in the first in- 
stance toward England."* The nomination of Sea- 
bury was considered as done by the clergy of Con- 
necticut "in their individual capacities," not "as a 
regular ecclesiastical proceeding." f For this reason, 
among others, the convention had be§n inf ormed,, the 
English bishops refused to ordain Seabury, being 
"doubtful how far the act of some clergymen, in their 
individual capacities, would be acquiesced in by their 
respective flocks."^: 

There was " schism " in the air. Dr. White called his 
convention to meet in Philadelphia in September, 1785. 
Dr. Seabury called his to meet in New Haven in the 
summer. Dr. Seabury's ideas of Church government 
were few and simple. "He disapproved," says Dr. 



* Memoirs of the Church, p. 21. j Ibid., p. 91. | Ibid., p. 21. 



252 The Iligh-churchndn Disarmed: 



White, "of submitting the general concerns of the 
American Church to any other than bishops." * Being 
the only man in America who had any claim to that of- 
fice among "Churchmen," the affair was reduced to a 
simple matter of personal sovereignty. "I am the 
Church," was the motto of Dr. Seabury. lie had 
"the courage of his convictions," too, and wrote them 
out, and they found their way to the Philadelphia 
convention. The lay brethren— "a few of them," is 
the diplomatic phrase of Dr. White— "spoke more 
warmly than the occasion seemed to justify, consider- 
ing that the letter appeared to contain the honest sen- 
timents of the writer, delivered in inoffensive terms." + 
Of course they were the "honest sentiments of the 
writer," and George III. entertained the honest sen- 
timent that the whole thirteen colonies were a set of 
incorrigible rebels, over whom, by divine right, he 
had a lawful authority. So Dr. Seabury claims abso- 
lute monarchy in the Church for the bishop— that is, 
for himself. As to the "inoffensive terms" of the 
writer, the following quotation from Dr. Seabury 's 
letter will furnish a satisfactory specimen: 

" The plea of the Methodists is something like im- 
pudence. Mr. Wesley is only a presbyter, and all his 
ordinations Presbyterian, and in direct opposition to 
the Church of England; and they can have no pre- 
tense for calling themselves Churchmen till they re- 
turn to the unity of the Church, which they have un- 
reasonably, unnecessarily, and wickedly broken by 
their separation and schism." \ 

This is choice language, it may be, according to the 
t ^ ste ,„ o£ a Churchman, but forjx Tory chaplain, then 
* Memoirs of the Church, p. 112. f Ibid. J Life of UaSu ry~pTl85. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



253 



in the pay of the King of England, to brand a com- 
munity of people for whom he had neither religious 
sympathy nor cooperation of any kind, is as near an 
approach to " impudence " as the annals of the period 
can furnish. His ignorance of Methodism is ex- 
pressed in his allusion to the term "Churchmen." 
The Methodists had no desire to call themselves by 
that name. It had no antiquity to ennoble it, no grace 
divine to commend it, and certainly there was nothing 
in Dr. Seabury or his antecedents to recommend it to 
Asbury and his itinerant preachers. 

But to return to Dr. Seabury and the Protestant 
Episcopal Church. The reason which influenced the 
convention of 1785 to make application to England 
for the episcopacy is given by Dr. White. "No 
doubt," he says, "the sentiment was strengthened by 
the general disapprobation entertained in America of 
the prejudices which, in the year 1688, in Scotland, 
had deprived the Episcopal Church of her establish- 
ment, and had kept her ever since in hostility to the 
family on the throne." * This, being interpreted, 
means that the American people had no sympathy for 
the Scotch Jacobites, and regarded their attitude to- 
ward the house of Hanover as one of actual rebellion. 
The foundation of the Church of Dr. Seabury's con- 
secrators was neither more nor less than "prejudice'' 
against the revolution of 1688. That was the dawn 
of civil and religious liberty in Great Britain, and the 
J acobite owls retired to the dens and caves of Scot- 
land to perpetuate a "succession" of inveterate hatred 
for the changes which had made the Parliament su- 
perior to the King, and the individual conscience 
* Memoirs of the Church, p. 113. 



254 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



greater than Episcopal "orders" or convocations of 
the clergy. 

Thus, disregarding Dr. Seabury and his supposed 
Episcopal ordination, application was made to En- 
gland by a convention composed of sixteen clergymen 
and twenty-six laymen. The preponderance of lay- 
men was a conservative feature. No Ch arch is greatly 
exposed to extreme measures looking to ecclesksticism 
when the legislators of the body are laymen. Dr. 
Seabury wanted a Church governed by bishops, and 
by bishops only. He wanted no Articles of Religion, 
for the Scotch Non-jurors had none. Opposition to 
the house of Hanover served them for a Confession of 
Faith. But the- American Episcopalians wanted Arti- 
cles of Religion, a Liturgy, and government by the 
laity and clergy combined. They followed the lead of 
the Presbyterians among connectional bodies, and it 
is doubtful whether the Episcopal Church could have 
been organized upon any other principles without 
meeting a speedy dissolution. 

The two conventions did not interfere with each 
other. The Philadelphia body ignored the existence 
of Dr. Seabury, and his "convocation " proceeded with 
much self-satisfaction to set in order the affairs of the 
diocese. Great difference of opinion prevailed in 
Philadelphia about the Liturgy, the Articles, the 
Creeds; but after months of weary waiting, and some 
minute, if not unprofitable, debate, the Rev. Dr. 
White, of Pennsylvania, and the Rev. Dr. Provoost, 
of New York, were ordained by the Archbishop of 
Canterbury on the 4th of February, 1787. On the 
28th of July, 1789, the Triennial Convention assem- 
bled and acknowledged the episcopacy of Bishops 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 255 



White and Provoost. "At this convention there nat- 
urally occurred the importance of taking measures for 
the perpetuating of the succession," says Dr. White, 
"a matter which some circumstances had subjected to 
considerable difficulty."* One would suppose that, 
having at this time three bishops, and this being the 
number made " canonical " by the Council of Nice, 
there could be no great difficulty in the case. But 
there was a difficulty. The singular status of Dr. 
Seabury was the Gordian knot that nobody could un- 
tie, and there was no Alexander there whose sword 
was sharp enough to cut it. Seabury was, and he was 
not, a bishop. He was bishop enough to ordain cler- 
gymen in his own diocese, and votes of the convention 
called him a bishop; but when it came to placing the 
validity of the apostolic succession in the hands of 
Dr. Seabury, the convention recoiled, and none more 
effectively than Bishop White himself. 

Dr. Griffiths, of Virginia, had been elected by the 
convention of his diocese, but, let it be recorded with 
a sense of shame that no subsequent repentance can 
remove, he was too poor to pay the expenses of his or- 
dination, and there was not liberality enough among 
his friends to furnish him with the money for a voy- 
age to England and the expense incurred there. Dr. 
White, in his most polished manner, says he was 
" prevented by occurrences in his domestic situation 
from prosecuting his intended voyage to England." f 
In another place the diplomatic Doctor tells us it was 
simply "the want of money." J This was a very com- 
mon want, but it is a melancholy proof of the prevailing 
indifference to the cause of the Church. In the work 
* Memoirs of the Church, p. 27. f Ibid., p. 27. | ibid., p. 167, note* 



256 The High-chiirchiiian Disarmed: 



entitled li Facsimiles o£ Church Documents" is a cu- 
rious paper, which will be read with interest. It will 
show that the '-'apostolical succession," whether val- 
uable in a spiritual sense, was certainly a costly bless- 
ing. The voyage out and back, the expenses of main- 
tenance, to say nothing of expected "hospitalities" 
there, would have exhausted the private purse of most 
clergymen in that day, with bills like the following as 
simply " incidental:"' 

The Right Rev. AVilliam "White. D.D., Bishop of Pennsylvania. 

To William Dicker Dr. 
1787. £ s. d. 
January 25. To fees paid at the Secretary of State's of- 
fice for His Majesty's license authorizing 
the Archbishop of Canterbury to conse- 
crate.. 4 16 9 

February 4. To fees at the Vicar-general's office, Doc- 
tor's Commons, as by account 6 6 4 

To several attendances at Lord Sydney's 
office, Doctor's Commons, etc., and en- 
grossing certificate of consecration and 

parchment < — 2 2 

For gratuity to Chapel Clerk at Lambeth 

Palace 10 6 

To coach hire at sundry times 7 G 

£14 3 1 



To expenses of consecrating the Rev. William White, D.D., to be 
Bishop of Pennsylvania (consecrated Sunday, 4th of February, 



1787): 


£ 




D. 




1 





o 


Drawing and engraving the Act of Consecration, and 













8 


8 


Registers fee attending the consecration at Lambeth... 


1 


6 


; 8 




2 


10 










10 


6 







10 


6 



£G G 4 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 257 



But what need was there for the voyage to London 
and this enormous personal expense? None in the 
world, on the supposition that Dr. Seabury teas a regu- 
lar! i) ordained bishop of the Church. If he was not a 
bishop, what shall we think of the convention that de- 
clared that he was? The unfortunate Dr. Griffiths re- 
signed, and gave over the pursuit, but the question of 
Dr. Seabury's ordination came to the front, and was 
settled in a most remarkable way. "The subject of 
perpetuating the succession from England," says Dr. 
White, "with the relation which it bore to the ques- 
tion of embracing that from the Scotch Episcopacy, 
was brought into view by a measure of the clergy in 
Massachusetts and New Hampshire. This body had 
elected the Eev. Edward Bass, rector of St. Paul's 
Church in Newbury port, their bishop, and had ad- 
dressed a letter to the bishops of Connecticut, New 
York, and Pennsylvania, praying them to unite in 
consecrating him."* Bishop Provoost, "although he 
did not appear to be possessed of personal ill-will to 
Bishop Seabury," says Dr. White, "was opposed to 
having any thing to do with the Scotch succession, 
which he did not hesitate to pronounce irregular, "f 

An "irregular succession" is something that has 
never been explained or defined. An "irregular suc- 
cession" is, in fact, a contradiction, an absurdity. 
Bishop Provoost believed, and he was not alone in be- 
lieving, that the Scotch succession was not simply 
» irregular," but it had no existence at all. The proof 
of this is seen in the resolution of the diocesan con- 
vention of New York, in 1788, that it was highly neces- 
sary " to preserve the Episcopal succession in the En- 
* Memoirs of the Church, p. 27. f Ibid., p. 1G3. 

17 



258 



The Iiigli-cliitycliman Disarmed: 



glish line."* Why was it necessary? If the Scotch 
succession led to the apostles, the English could do no 
more. Why, then, is it necessary to preserve the En- 
glish line? In the reign of James I. the two lines of 
succession meet. What difference does it make wheth- 
er Seabury traces his ecclesiastical ancestors back 
through the Scotch Church to Archbishop W hit- 
gift, or Dr. White through the English line to the 
same Archbishop of Canterbury? It is trifling with 
common sense to deny that the Scotch succession was 
as good as the English if it was a valid succession at 
all. 

The diplomacy involved in the disposal of this is- 
sue at the convention of 1789 is worthy of the genius 
of a Talleyrand. Bishop White, occupying the chair, 
places the letter before the convention. He tells them 
that he is anxious and ready to unite with the Episco- 
pal Churches in the Eastern States, but "at the same 
time expressing his doubt of its being consistent with 
the faith impliedly pledged to the English prelates to 
proceed to any consecration without first obtaining 
from them the number held in their Church to be ca- 
nonically necessary to such an act."f In plain En- 
glish, the Archbishop of Canterbury does not believe 
in the Scotch succession, and to employ Seabury as a 
valid third man in the canonical trio is to affront the 
English prelates. 

Dr. White does not say that they, the Americans, 
have actually pledged themselves, but an "impliedly 
pledged " faith forbids his participating with Dr. Sea- 
bury in the consecration of Dr. Bass. But the con- 
vention voted a request that the two recognized bish- 

* Memoirs of the Church, p, 163, note, f White's Memoirs, p. 28. 



A Defense Of Our Methodist Fathers. 259 



ops, White and Provoost, should unite with Bishop 
Seabury, and the convention undertook to write an ad- 
dress " to the archbishops and bishops of England, re- 
questing their approbation of the measure for the re- 
moving of any difficulty or delicacy which might 
remain on the minds of ilie bishops whom they had 
already consecrated.""" Dr. White wished to bring 
the Church of Connecticut into the union, " but as the 
Scotch succession could not be officially recognized by the 
English bisltops, he wished to complete the succession 
from England before such a comprehension should 
take place." f 

This diplomacy baffles all attempts at penetration 
into some of its mysteries. What had the English 
bishops to do with the recognition of Dr. Seabury? 
In what way could it be shown that his taking part in 
an ordination in America involved his "official" rec- 
ognition by English bishops? He did take part in 
the ordination of Dr. Claggett in 1792, as Bishop Mad- 
ison had meantime been ordained in England. Now 
why was it that the English bishops did not take of- 
fense at the recognition of Dr. Seabury in the ordina- 
tion of Dr. Claggett? The reason is Dr. Seabury was 
the fourth man in the consecration, and, as only three 
were necessary, the fourth man counts for nothing, 
" as this could not weaken the English line of succes- 
sion," says Dr. Wilson, the biographer of Dr. White. \ 

Surely, outside of the pages of the Jesuits, there 
cannot be found such a case of subtle casuistry as 
this. "Implied faith" rescues Dr. White. Acting 
the part of a useless supernumerary satisfies Dr. Sea- 
bury. Passing a resolution to mollify the conscien- 
* White's Memoirs, p. 28. f Ibid, p. 163. i Life of White, p. 121. 



260 The High^ch arcliman Disarmed: 



tious convictions of two Episcopal officers, by writing 
an address of apology to certain foreign bishops, de- 
fines the duty of a grave Church convention, and the 
happy family vote themselves sublimely in accord with 
each other at the time they could not help seeing 
through every artifice employed. Dr. White and the 
convention were afraid of schism. They knew very 
well that Dr. Seabury had a following of clergymen, 
and these in turn must have had some constituents. 
They knew that the Scotch business was a matter of 
debate, and that any discussion of the subject was to 
be deprecated. "Samuel Connecticut" as the Tory 
bishop signed his name, had prescriptive rights, and 
intended to maintain them. The Church could not 
afford to debate any question, especially one that in- 
volved the very foundation of- the edifice they were 
trying to build. These things considered, the service 
of Dr. White was indispensable. He seems to be the 
"Jeus ex machina" that directed the whole course of 
events. Dr. Bass and the brethren of New Hampshire 
were the only parties who had a right to complain. 
The former was diplomatized out of his bishopric, and 
the latter kept for eight years without a bishop. But 
it was a triumph of genius. The intention was to get 
rid of Dr. Seabury and his ordinations, and it teas so 
effectually done that not a man in America can trace his 
clerical succession from Bishop Seabury. 

The proofs of this assertion will be seen in their full 
force by a brief collation of the facts in the case. 
Bishop Seabury attended only one triennial conven- 
tion, that of 1792. He was absent from the conven- 
tion of 1795, and died the next year. He assisted at 
the ordination of but one bishop, and then he was the 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers, 



261 



fourth, the needless man. By the theory of " apostol- 
ical succession"' the unnecessary man is the useless man 
in the act of consecration. If four bishops were pres- 
ent, and Bishop Seabury had presided at the consecra- 
tion, then, being one of the necessary three, the valid- 
ity of his ordination would affect that of the man then 
ordained. This contingency was foreseen, of course, 
and Dr. White, being the canonical senior, gives place 
to Bishop Provoost, the second of the canonical trio. 
Thus it was arranged, and Dr. Seabury was outwitted 
in his turn. There seems to be something of poetical 
justice in this. Like Jacob of old, Dr. Seabury took 
time by the forelock, and captured the birthright 
blessing by dint of loyalty to King George in the first 
place, and obsequiousness to the house of Stuart in 
the last instance. But Jacob had no sooner found a 
home in Padan-aram than he found his match at 
sharp practice. Laban paid him in his own coin. So 
here we have the clerical Jacob secure with his birth- 
right in possession, but this time it turns out to be the 
elder brother who is to pay back with interest the 
wrong inflicted by surreptitious " orders." Seabury is 
first in point of time, but by clever management he can 
be deprived of all spiritual posterity, and his coal 
quenched in Israel forever. Esau is equal to the oc- 
casion: and implied faith, and resolutions of conven- 
tions, and any amount of clerical palaver, are all ex- 
pended to secure that end. ''The Protestant Episco- 
pal Church in the United States does not depend upon 
Dr. Seabury as an indispensable link in the chain of 
the apostolical succession."' 

The process is a very simple one. The Episcopal 
succession is the chain that preserves " apostolical au- 



262 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



thority." Every presbyter ordained by Bishop Sea- 
bury is dead. With each presbyter dies the authority 
which he possessed. Granting that three bishops are 
necessary to consecrate another bishop, the necessary 
three in the ordination of Bishop Claggett were Pro- 
voost, White, and Madison. The supernumerary man 
was Seabury, and the position accorded him precluded 
him from transmitting any authority of any kind. His 
admission into the ceremony was a mere act of grace. 
He was weak enough to complain to Dr. White before 
the hour for the performance that he apprehended 
they intended to exclude him from taking any part on 
the occasion. Bishop Provoost "waived" his objec- 
tion to cooperation with the Scotch succession, and the 
matter passed off very smoothly indeed. Bishop 
White in his life-time took part in the consecration of 
twenty-seven bishops, and this is the only case in which 
he did not preside. Is there no purpose in all this? 
Clear as the noonday was the intention to preserve the 
succession through the English line, and it is equally 
clear that it could not be preserved through both at 
the same time. Three being essential, and three of 
the English line being present, the fourth man. of the 
Scotch line, is a mere grace-note in the music, and 
amounts to nothing:. 

At the time of the union of the Eastern States with 
the Central and Southern in 1789/ the organization, 
properly speaking, of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 
an incident occurred that can be told most appropri- 
ately by Dr. White : 

"But a danger arose from an unexpected question 
on the very day of the arrival of these gentlemen. 
The danger was on the score of politics. Some lay 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



263 



members of the convention — two of them were known, 
and perhaps there were more — having obtained infor- 
mation that Bishop Seabury, who had been chaplain 
to a British regiment during the war, was now in re- 
ceipt of half-pay, entertained scruples in regard to the 
propriety of admitting him as a member of the con- 
vention. One of the gentlemen took the author aside 
at a gentleman's house, where several of the conven- 
tion were dining, and stated to him this difficulty. His 
opinion — it is hoped the right one — was that an ec- 
clesiastical body needed not to be over righteous, or 
more so than civil bodies, on such a point ; that he 
knew of no law of the land which the circumstance 
relative to a former chaplaincy contradicted; that in- 
'deed there was an article in the Confederation, then 
the bond of union of the States, providing that no cit- 
izen of theirs should receive title of nobility from a 
foreign power, a provision not extending to the receipt 
of money, which seemed impliedly allowed, indeed, in 
the guard provided against the other; that Bishop 
Seabury' s half -pay was a compensation for former 
services, and not for any now expected of him ; that it 
did not prevent his being a citizen, with all the rights 
attached to the character in Connecticut, and that 
should he or any person in like circumstances be re- 
turned a member of Congress from that State, he 
must necessarily be admitted of their body. The 
gentleman to whom the reasoning was addressed 
seemed satisfied, and, either from this or some other 
cause, the objection was not brought forward. The 
author very much apprehended that the contrary 
would happen, not because of the prejudices of the 
gentleman who addressed him on the subject, but be- 



264 The Htyh-chiirchman Disarmed: 



cause of those of another, who had started the diffi- 
culty."* 

Thus it will be seen that Dr. Seabury, nearly five 
years after his election as a bishop of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in the United States, was drawing 
half-pay as a chaplain in the British army! Dr. 
White's reasoning, and his views of the qualifications 
of a religious body — that is to say, an ecclesiastical 
body — are entirely foreign to the system of ethics 
known among ourselves at the present time. Between 
the advocate of principles so accommodating as these 
and the severe simplicity and the unselfish devotion 
of Francis Asbury, there could be no bond of sympa- 
thy, no basis of religious union. 

* Memoirs of the Church, pp. 167, 168. 



Chapter MM 

Iligh-church Controversies in Wesley's Youth — Dr. Sacheverell — Dr. 
Hoadley — Kev. Samuel "Wesley Writes Sacheverell's Speech — 
The Kingdom of Christ — Bangorian Controversy — Lay Preachers 
— Charles Wesley on Hireling Priests — Illustrations — Lord King's 
Primitive Church — Influence upon Wesley — He Draws a Sketch 
of the Church — Societies not Churches — No Sacraments — Yield- 
ing to Providence — Letters from Asbnry — Urgent Calls — Asbury 
did not Wish to be Superseded— Dr. Coke Misrepresented — Wes- 
ley in his Dotage Influenced by Coke — The Contrary Proved Be- 
yond Question — Wesley Proposed the Plan of an American Churc h 
to Coke — The Eesult— Wesley could only Eecommend a Bishop; 
the Church must Elect him — Organization of Methodism in 1784. 

HEN Jolm Wesley was about seven years 
of age two famous controversialists divided 
the attention of the religious public in England. The 
first of these, Dr. Sacheverell, preached a remarkable 
sermon before the Lord Mayor and court of aldermen. 
He was "attached to the most extravagant doctrines 
of the High-church," says Macpherson,* and taught 
the doctrine of the divine right of kings in the most 
offensive forms, inveighing with great passion against 
dissenters, and advocating the doctrine of passive obe- 
dience. This sermon threw the kingdom into a fer- 
ment, and the preacher was impeached, tried by Par- 
liament, and convicted. On his trial he read a speech 
in his defense, " in which he justified his doctrines 
with some energy and a great deal of heat, expressing 
his apjjrobation of the revolution and his respect for 
the reigning Queen and her government," f Of this 

* History of Great Britain, vol. ii., p. 303, t Ibid., p. 397. 

(2G5) 



266 The High-church mlm Disarmed: 

speech Bishop Burnet says: "It was very plain the 
speech was made for him by others, for the style was 
correct and far different from his Own." * In the " Me- 
moirs of the Wesley Family," written by Dr. Adam 
Clarke, we are informed, upon the testimony of John 
Wesley, that this celebrated speech was written by 
his father, Key. Samuel Wesley, rector of Epworth. f 
Having been a dissenter in his youth, and the son of a 
dissenting minister, it is difficult to see how Samuel 
Wesley could bring himself to aid in the defense of 
a man who had defamed the people to whom he once 
belonged. But we shall look in vain for consistency 
among those whose opinions have committed them 
to extreme and indefensible theories of government 
in Church or State. We cannot be surprised, there- 
fore, that John Wesley began his career, as his broth- 
er Charles did, a High-churchman of the most pro- 
nounced type. In this regard alone the brothers dif- 
fered, for John discarded and Charles retained his 
lofty views of clerical power and^ authority. 

It is not a little remarkable, however, that John 
Wesley, whose intellectual capacity was equal to the 
investigation of all subjects, and whose tastes in- 
clined him "to intermeddle with all knowledge," did 
not interest himself in the second of these great con- 
troversialists, who originated what has been called the 
Bangorian controversy. Preaching before the Lord 
Mayor on a State occasion, Dr. Hoadley, in 1710, ad- 
vocated the doctrine that the people possessed the 
right, in extreme cases, to rise up against their rulers 
and to dethrone a monarch who had become a despot. 

* History of his Own Time, vol. iv., p. 283. f Wesley Fi jaily, p. 

186. 



A Defense of Our Method'^ Fathe 



267 



In other words, the title of the reigning Queen, Anne, 
resting upon the lawfulness of the revolution of 1683, 
the preacher only maintained those opinions that min- 
istered to the peace and quietude of the kingdom. 
The High-church party, however, pursued the preach- 
er with great vindietiveness; but a few years later he 
was made Bishop of Bangor, and delivered a sermon 
which gave even greater offense to High-churchmen. 
In 1717 he preached before the King a sermon on 
"''The Nature of the Kingdom or Church of Christ.'' 
No controversy, it is said, <: ever attracted so much 
attention for the time it continued, nor enlisted so 
large a number of combatants.' 5 "It was the pur- 
pose of the author, in the sermon which gave occasion 
to this controversy, to make it appear from the Script- 
ures that the kingdom of Christ is in all respects a 
spiritual kingdom, in which Christ himself is the only 
King and Lawgiver. Temporal governments and laws 
have no just control in this kingdom. The authority 
of Christ and his apostles demands our undivided re- 
pec t and submission. Human penalties and encour- 
agements to enforce religious assent are not consist- 
ent with the principles of the gospel. They may pro- 
duce a unity of profession, but not of faith; they may 
make hypocrites, but not sincere Christians."' * 

These sentiments, eminently in accord with the prin- 
ciples taught by Wesley in subsequent years, were not 
acceptable to the household of Epworth rectory. Both 
the father and the mother of the Wesleys knew what 
it was to suffer the frowns of the Government because 
of dissenting opinions; but, having embraced the 
tenets of the Church, they gave their influence in 



268 



The High-churchman Dimrmed: 



behalf of the most decided High-church theories. 
Young as he was, however, we can scarcely conceive 
of John Wesley as of one entirely indifferent to the 
subject of this discussion. He was preparing to en- 
ter Christ Church College at Oxford when the Bishop 
of Bangor published his "Answer to the Representa- 
tion drawn up by the Committee of the Lower House of 
Convocation." * This committee had affirmed the doc- 
trines of Bishop Hoadley to be dangerous to the wel- 
fare of the Church and fltate. In this answer he pro- 
posed to compare every thing which he either received 
or rejected "with the principles of reason, the decla- 
rations of the gospel, and the main foundations of the 
Reformation." It is scarcely possible to read this 
sermon and its defense without yielding a hearty as- 
sent to the arguments of the author. It was charged 
that his principles tended to produce anarchy and 
confusion, and to subvert all discipline in the Church. 
He replied, showing that his theory of government 
was the only one that admitted of any discipline what- 
ever, and that the legitimate consequence was a well- 
regulated order, coexisting with individual liberty. 
He had affirmed in the sermon that " Christ has left 
behind him no visible human authority; no vicege- 
rents who can be said properly to supply his place; 
no interpreters upon whom his subjects are absolutely 
to depend; no judges over the consciences or religion 
of his people." These words appear to us, in the 
latter part of the nineteenth century, as containing 
principles inseparable from Protestant Christianity; 
and we can conceive of no medium between these 
views and the doctrines of the Church of Rome. 
* Printed in 1717. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 269 



But John Wesley was not then a converted man. 
He was seeking, like Saul of Tarsus, to establish his 
own righteousness; and when it pleased God to lead 
the troubled spirit of his servant to the rest of faith in 
the blood of a crucified Redeemer step by step, taught 
of the Lord in providence and by the ministry of oth- 
ers, the prelatical prejudices of his youth gave way, and 
he became the Lord's freeman, rejoicing in the glori- 
ous liberty of the gospel. A young believer is uncon- 
sciously developed into a preacher, and shows the work 
of the Spirit in results that could not be questioned. 
One of the clerical privileges— that of preaching, of 
teaching the way of life — was shown by the facts in the 
case to be separable from episcopal ordination. The 
Lord Jesus, by his Holy Spirit, had not abdicated the 
throne in favor- of this or that bishop of a diocese, 
but still retained the prerogative to call whomsoever 
he pleased to be embassadors to the nations and work- 
men in the vineyard. A man on whose head no prel- 
ate's hands had been placed became a son of thun- 
der, under whose resistless eloquence scores and hun- 
dreds were made new creatures in Christ Jesus. 
Wesley saw, reasoned, and was convinced. One of 
the outposts of High -church prejudice was taken by 
storm by the developing providence of God. Soon 
the lines of demarcation were drawn distinctly. Men 
who claimed " apostolical succession" laughed, sneered, 
or anathematized the work of God. Mitered bishops 
frowned, and some of them threatened, but none of 
them in England condescended to hear or to investi- 
gate, if perchance they might know whereof these 
witnesses were testifying. That overseers of the flock 
of Christ could roll in luxury and feast and revel 



270 



The High^churchnmn Disarmed: 



while the people were perishing for lack of knowl- 
edge seemed to this evangelist to be a thing incredi- 
ble until he became an eye-witness of the fact. Giv- 
ing all his time, all his thoughts, to the one great 
purpose, to disseminate the word of life, to sow the 
seed of the kingdom, he did not fear the frown nor 
court the favor of men of high degree. Graceful in 
manner, tender in spirit, ^ courteous to the grimy- 
faced collier as to the wearer of a coronet, he mourned 
when he was expelled from the Churches — not be- 
cause he was dishonored, but because Christ was 
wounded in the house of his professed friends. But 
when ecclesiastical lords and titled clergymen held up 
the gospel to ridicule, and turned the lame and the 
blind out of the way of life, the spirit of his brother 
Charles was stirred within him. High-churchman as 
he was, the poet of Methodism turned his holy indig- 
nation into rhymes which have not lost their point 
though more than a century of time divides us from 
the occasion that inspired them : 

Master, for thine we cannot OAvn 

The Avorkmen who themselves create, 
Their call receive from man alone 

As licensed servants of the State; 
Who to themselves the honor take, 

Nor tarry till thy Spirit move, 
But serve, for filthy lucre's sake, 

The souls they neither feed nor love. 
In vain in their own lying words 

The haughty self-deceivers trust ; 
The harvest's and the vineyard's lords 

In vain the true succession boast ; 
Their lawful property they claim 

The apostolic ministry; 
But only laborers in name, 

They prove they are not sent by thee. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 271 



The men who provoked these shafts of keenest steel 
were too busily engaged in securing their own per- 
sonal advancement to care for any condemnation that 
did not involve the loss of a lucrative living. Who- 
ever has taken the pains to read the biographies of 
some of the prelates of the English Church who 
nourished during the eighteenth century will see how 
shameless was the struggle for places that had large 
incomes attached to their possession, If the loss of 
a bishopric gave pungency and venom to the pen of 
the famous Dean of St. Patrick's, the loss of expected 
"translations" and "elevations," and gifts of dean- 
eries and bishoprics, has caused the clergymen of the 
last century to publish their shame to the world in 
many a ponderous volume. While a bishop of Nor- 
wich was filling the halls of political patronage with 
plaintive appeals and passionate protests because he 
was compelled to exist upon the paltry sum of eight 
thousand five hundred dollars per annum, a vigorous 
Methodist bishop was riding on horseback a distance 
of five or six thousand miles a year, with the princely 
compensation of sixty-four dollars per annum ! Who 
can read the life of this jxrelate of Norwich, and oth- 
ers of his ilk, and fail to realize the forcible lines of 
Charles Wesley? 

Venerable gamesters play, 

Eight venerable men, 
Each contends the goodliest prey, 

The largest share to gain; 
Eager each the Avhole to engross, 

As Churchmen never satisfied, 
First they nail him to the cross. 

And then the spoils divide. 

It was amidst scenes and struggles of this charac- 



272 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



ter that John Wesley, fresh from the tombstone pul- 
pit m his native town, turned, with all the energy of 
his character, to the study of the nature and constitu- 
tion of the Church of Christ. "Lord King's 'Account 
of the Primitive Church ' convinced me many years 
ago," he writes in 1784, "that bishops and presbyters 
are the same order, and consequently have the same 
right to ordain." * The exact date of his change of 
views is recorded in the Journal, January 20, 1746, so 
that nearly forty years had elapsed before he acted 
upon the principles laid down by the Lord High Chan- 
cellor of England. But the adoption of these views 
in 1746 was only the sequel to the graphic reasoning 
which he had recorded in the Conference in the pre° 
ceding year, 1745: 

" 9 uest Is Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Independent 
Church government most agreeable to reason? Ans. 
The plain origin of Church government seems to be 
this: Christ sends forth a person to preach the gos- 
pel; some of those who hear him repent, and believe 
in Christ; they then desire him to watch over them, 
to build them up in faith, and to guide their souls 
into paths of righteousness. Here, then, is an inde- 
pendent congregation, subject to no pastor but their 
own; neither liable to be controlled in things spirit- 
ual by any other man or body of men whatsoever. 
But soon after some from other parts, who were occa- 
sionally present while he was speaking in the name 
of the Lord, beseech him to come over and help them 
also. He complies, yet not till he confers with the 
wisest and holiest of his congregation; and, with their 
consent, appoints one who has gifts and grace to watch 

•• Letter to Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and our brethren in America. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 273 



over his flock in his absence. If it please God to 
raise another flock in the new place before he leaves 
them, he does the same thing, appointing one whom 
God hath fitted for the work to watch over these souls 
also. In like manner, in every place where it pleases 
God to gather a little flock by his word, he appoints 
one, in his absence, to take the oversight of the rest, 
to assist them as of the ability which God giveth. 

" These are deacons, or servants of the Church ; and 
they look upon their first pastor as the common father 
of all these congregations, and regard him in the same 
light and esteem him still as the shepherd of their 
souls. These congregations are not strictly independ- 
ent, as they depend upon one pastor, though not upon 
each other. As these congregations increase, and 
the deacons grow in years and grace, they need other 
subordinate deacons, or helpers, in respect to whom 
they may be called presbyters or elders, as their father 
in the Lord may be called the bishop or overseer of 
them all." 

This is a plaiu, straightforward account of the rise 
and progress of the Methodists in England, as well 
as a clear view of the origin of the Church of Christ 
in the apostolic age. The salvation of the souls of 
men is the prime object of all Church association. 
That system of Church government which promotes 
the salvation of the greatest number of souls is the 
system most agreeable to the Holy Scriptures. As 
the object is one, the methods are many. " There is 
one spirit, but a diversity of administrations." The 
local or political environment of a people may make 
one form of administration more effective than an- 
other; but, until all the conditions and degrees of civ- 
18 



274: 



The High -ch urcii man Disarmed: 



ilization and social culture and mental attainments are 
uniform, we cannot expect one invariable form of 
Church organization to be adapted to all times, places, 
and peoples. 

Mr. Wesley and his helpers organized hundreds of 
" Societies." They were not " churches," nor did they, 
combined, form a Church. They lacked one essential 
feature of Church life. They had "the pure word of 
God " preached among them and to them. They were 
undoubtedly godly men and women; their piety was 
not questioned, and when any man's lack of religious 
purpose was proved, he was promptly laid aside. They 
had a true ministry, "full of faith and of the Holy 
Ghost." They lacked but one thing — the administra- 
tion of the sacraments. Wherever Mr. Wesley and a 
few other ordained clergymen met, the ordinances were 
administered; but it was impossible for two or three 
men to supply the needs of many thousands. What 
hindered the penitent people from being baptized? 
the happy, regenerate souls from partaking of the 
Supper of the Lord? Who could forbid them to re- 
member their dying Lord in the wine and bread of 
the holy communion, given them by the beloved min- 
isters who had taught them the way to the cross and 
rejoiced with them when their mourning was turned- 
into gladness? Who could hear the eloquent speech 
of a soul new born into the kingdom of grace, and 
still forbid him to put on the badge of the coven-ant 
in the ordinance of baptism? Nothing but the strong- 
est persuasion that the glory of God and the salva- 
tion of the souls of men might be best advanced by 
a steady resistance to popular desire, and to the man- 
ifest dictates of human reason, could have influenced 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 275 

J olm Wesley in his persistent adherence to a Church 
whose toleration was indifference and its charity con- 
tempt. That he held this position for nearly fifty 
years is the one inscrutable enigma in his remarkable 
career. That he was sincere no man capable of form- 
ing an unprejudiced opinion can doubt. That he was 
in error is scarcely a debatable question at this day. 
That he failed in his purpose to reform the Church 
of England is simply to confess that he belonged to 
the long list of eminent laborers in the kingdom who 
have given their lives to the work of reforming their 
societies by working within, and by methods harmon- 
izing with "Church order." From Savonarola to 
Kigii the Koman Church can count scores of reform- 
ers who lived and prayed and worked, but died under 
the iron heel of a power which they had hoped by 
holy fire to transmute into the fine gold of the king- 
dom of God. From fallen Adam to the latest born of 
women, a "self-reforming" organism is unknown to 
human society. 

But Wesley saw the need, and wisely yielded— not 
to the persuasions of men, nor to the blandishments of 
personal ambition, nor to the weaknesses engendered 
by the fourscore years of his pilgrimage, but to the 
providence of God, written in the chasm that war had 
made, and uttered forth in the voice of events more 
eloquent than human speech and more instructive 
than the wisdom of the wise. A new people had 
sprung into being, and from this people, in the midst 
of their struggle for political freedom, came a request 
which he dare not refuse. He was their apostle in a 
high and holy sense. They had never seen his face 
in the flesh, but in the rude mansion of the prosper- 



270 



The High-churchndn Disqrmea: 



ous farmer, in the log-hut of the hardy pioneer, in 
town and city, and in country-places here and there 
in the vast forests of the New World, the gracious 
teachings of the Book of God translated into the ex- 
perience of a living soul arrested the attention, ab- 
sorbed the thoughts, and led the souls of men to 
Christ. Tears and shouts of joy, heart-burnings of 
living fire enkindled, followed the reading of this holy 
man's simple words and unpolished sentences. The 
Spirit of God had given to him many thousands in 
America who looked up to him as their shepherd, their 
bishop of souls. The hireling ministry the sheep 
knew not; and for their pompous pretensions of mystic 
grace, befouled by the contact of a hundred or a thou- 
sand impious "links" in the rusty chain of succes- 
sion, they cared not. 

Mr. Wesley had received the letters from Francis As- 
bury, written in 1780, describing the compromise which 
had arrested the action of the Virginia brethren. He 
did not act hastily nor inconsistently. He studied the 
question from every point of view. "I firmly believe 
I am a scriptural e-irrxo-oc, as much as any man in 
England or in Europe," he wrote in 1785, nearly twelve 
months after he had ordained Dr. Coke. When he 
notified the Conference in July, 1784, that he pur- 
posed sending Dr. Coke to America, the English 
preachers knew that this was a special mission, and 
for no ordinary purpose. If Wesley did not inform 
the Conference of all the particulars, it was because 
nothing had been positively determined further than 
the act of sending a representative who was authorized 
to do for the Americans all that Wesley could have 
done if he had been present, Francis Asbury had 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 277 



written a letter to a friend in London in which he was 
understood to say that he would no; receive any man 
whom Mr. Wesley might send to supersede him in the 
general superintenclency in America.* This was an 
erroneous interpretation. What Mr. Asbury meant 
was that he could not receive, even from Mr. Wesley, 
an appointment which was not indorsed by the Church 
in America. Asbury, although a native of England, 
had become a firm advocate of popular rights, and he 
understood, as neither Mr. Wesley nor Dr. Coke could 
understand, the genius of the American people, and the 
nature of their surroundings. He saw that an inde- 
pendent Church was inevitable, and that the time for 
its organization had arrived. Precisely how that or- 
ganization was to be effected he did not undertake to 
say, but plainly intimated that the new Church must 
have the approval of those who constituted it, and 
that this approval must be one of hearty conviction, 
not of respectful acquiescence in the judgment of Mr. 
Wesley. 

Dr. Whitehead, in his life of Mr. Wesley, has given 
the occasion for a grievous misrepresentation of Dr. 
Coke in connection with the plan for organizing the 
American Church . He says Mr. Wesley suffered him- 
self to be influenced by Dr. Coke, and that the sug- 
gestion was first made by Coke that Wesley should 
ordain him a " superintendent," or bishop, and send 
him to America. Episcopalians, with great unanim- 
ity, delight to represent Wesley as an infirm old man, 
more than fourscore years of age, in the hands of an 
ambitious, scheming, astute adviser who prevailed 
upon the venerable man to take a hasty step fo r which 
*Life of Coke, by. Etheridge, p. 131. 



278 



Tlie Hir/lt-c/iitiv/tmaii Disarmed 



he was soon bitterly repentant* "With an intellect 
enfeebled by the weight of fourscore and two year, 
he was seduced, by those who wonld use his vaVt im 
. fluenee for purposes of their own." says Dr. Hawk, 
into the adoption of a plan which his 'more vigorous 
understanding had more than once rejected "! 4= 
sertions are easily made, and insinuations require but 
little effort wnen conscience does not interfere. But 
it there is one line, one fact, one word of proof in ex 
istence to show that Mr. Wesley had at any time re. 
jected the plan which he adopted in 1784. it would have 
been more m accordance with truth and honesty if 
Dr. Hawks had furnished the proof to support his' as- 
sertion Not a word can be produced to prove any 
thmg of the kind. A simple statement of the facte 
will place the whole matter in a light which makes 
comment needless. 

In February, 1784, Mr. Wesley, in his study in City 
-Koad, first divulged his purpose to Dr. Coke* t - He 
stated to him that, as the devolution in America had 
separated the United States from the mother country 
forever, and the Episcopal Establishment was utterly 
abolished, the Societies had been represented to him 
as in a most deplorable condition; that an appeal had 
also been made to him through Mr. Asbury, in which 
he was requested to provide for them some mode of 
Church government suited to their exigences, and that 
having long and seriously revolved the subject in his 
thoughts, he intended to adopt the plan which he was 
now about to unfold; that as he had invariable- en- 
deatowd, ia every step he had taken, to keep as close- 

r] Ufe of Weslev, p. 520. fP^testaW Episcopal 

Church in \ irgmia, p. 170. } Etheridge:. Life of Coke, p. 130. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers, 



279 



]y to the Bible as possible, so on the present occasion 
he hoped he was not about to deviate from it; that, 
keeping his eye upon the primitive Churches in the 
ages of unadulterated Christianity, he had much ad- 
mired the mode of ordaining bishops which the Church 
of Alexandria had practiced. To preserve its purity, 
that Church would never suffer the interference of a 
foreign bishop in any of their ordinations, but the 
presbyters, on the death of a bishop, exercised the 
right of ordaining another from their own body ; and 
this practice continued among them for two hundred 
years, till the days of Dionysius. And finally, that, 
being himself a presbyter, he wished Dr. Coke to ac- 
cept [episcopal] ordination from his hands, and to 
proceed in that character to the continent of America 
to superintend the Societies in the United States." * 

Dr. Coke prior to this time— February, 1784— had 
received no information concerning the matter, nor 
did he give his consent to the measure immediately. 
He required time to consider the question; for, great 
as was his respect for Mr. Wesley, it was manifest that 
this proceeding was not in accordance with the disci- 
pline of the Church of England. That was not an 
insuperable difficulty, however. The principal obsta- 
cle was the authority for this proceeding derivable 
from the sacred Scriptures. "He now applied him- 
self to those Biblical and patristic studies which bear 
upon the subject; and after the lapse of two months, 
spent partly in Scotland, communicated to Mr. Wes- 
ley that the conclusions at which he had arrived en- 
abled him without any hesitation to concur with him- 
self as to the abstract lawfulness of the measure which 



* Drew's Life of Coke, p, 63. 



280 



The High-uhurchmun Disarmed: 



had been proposed."* Notwithstanding this agree- 
ment of opinion with Wesley, Dr. Coke wrote, in 
April, 1,84, suggesting that some one should be sent 
to ascertain the condition of things in America, and 
to consult with the American Methodists as to the 
propriety of the plan proposed. This certainly ex- 
iubits no eagerness upon the part of Dr. Coke to ac- 
cept the mission. At the Conference in July, 178-1 
at Leeds, the plan was proposed, Mr. Fletcher adyo- 
cating it, and it was unanimously adopted. It was 
until after the Conference had adjourned that Dr 
Coke wrote the letter that forms the basis of Dr 
Whiteheads misrepresentations. In this letter Dr 
Coke suggests that two presbyters should be sent with' 
him for .here was but one Episcopal minister in the 
United States who was friendly to the Methodists, and 
he-Mr. J arnitt might not indorse the plan of Church 
government proposed. "In sk) rt," says Dr. Coke 
it appears to me that every thing should be prepared,' 
and [ every thing proper to be done that can possibly 
be done, this side the water." f 

There is no difficulty whatever in interpreting these 
words of Dr. Coke. He knew that Wesley could only 
recommend, and that the Methodists in America must 
decide the question, both as to the man sent to them 
and the plan of government proposed. But he did 
not wish to go without credentials, for the life of Mr 
Wesley was uncertain, and he, a young man compara- 
tive y and a most unknown even byname in America 
would be awkwardly situated if he had no more than 
Mr. T\ esley s letter of appointment. A solemn serv- 
ice of consecration was held in a private house in 
*Etheridge: Life of Coko, p. 132. t«>H., p. 135. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 281 

Bristol, but only there because the Conference was not 
in session; and the people of Bristol had no more to 
do with this matter than the people of Aberdeen had 
to do with the ordination of Dr. Seabury six weeks 
afterward. Both ordinations were performed in pri- 
vate houses. But Mr. Wesley violated no law of the 
land, while the ordainers of Dr. Seabury did. Fif- 
teen thousand Methodist communicants in America 
called for the ordination which Wesley performed; 
whereas ten Tory clergymen, "in their private capaci- 
ties," in a secret meeting, requested the ordination of 
Dr. Seabury. The ordination of Dr. Seabury was 
performed in a private dwelling-house by virtue of 
necessity, for a public proceeding would have brought 
upon the actors the penalty of the statute of praemu- 
nire. Mr. Wesley ordained Dr. Coke in a private 
house as a matter of choice, as the proceeding had no 
connection with any public interest in England. 

Thus did John Wesley, on the 2d day of Septem- 
ber, 1784, "by the imposition of hands" and prayer, 
assisted by other ordained ministers, set apart Thomas 
Coke, a presbyter of the Church of England, for the 
office of superintendent in America. Under date of 
August 30, 1785, relating the facts concerning this 
appointment, he says: "These are the steps which, 
not of choice, but necessity, I have slowly and delib- 
erately taken. If any one is pleased to call this sep- 
arating from the Church, he may; but the law of En- 
gland does not call it so."* The spirit of perversity 
which seems to possess a certain class of critics when 
referring to these events makes Wesley say that the 
wo rk Dr . Coke was a ppointed to do was not to pro- 
* Works, vol. xiii., p. 256. 



£82 The High-churchman Disarmed: 

mote a separation from the Church or England. He 
means that he does not separate from the Church of 
England by making this appointment and helping the 
people of another country to organize a Church. There 
was no Act of Parliament that prevented Mr. Wesley 
from ordaining Dr. Coke. But there were Acts of Par- 
liament that prevented the Archbishop of Canterbury 
from ordaining Dr. White. It was only by a change 
In the laws of Great Britain that the "priceless boon of 
apostolical succession " could be conferred upon Amer- 
ica. The Methodists of America had no further con- 
nection with the Church of England than their relation 
to Mr. Wesley involved. When he became to them a 
foreigner, they exercised the right of a free people in 
choosing their form of Church government, and elect- 
ed the bishops that had been recommended to them by 
the great and good man whose name becomes more 
and more illustrious with every effort to study his 
works and to analyze his character. 



Chapter XV. 



Arrival of Coke, Wliatcoat, and Vasey — Meeting at Barratt's Chap- 
el — Asbury Consents to his Election — Foolish Assertions — Wes- 
ley Did Intend to Organize an Episcopal Church in the United 
States — Proofs — Mr. Spooner's Tract — Rev. Thorns Ware at the 
Christmas Conference — Contrasting the Beginnings — Great Efforts 
and Several Years Consumed in Organizing the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church — Four Months Only Required from the First 
Movement to the Complete Organization of Methodism in Amer- 
ica — High-church Doctrine of 'Apostolical Succession" — Arch- 
bishop Whately — Silence of Scripture— No Pedigree — No Line 
of Bishops in Personal Succession— Difficulties of Prelacy— Bish- 
ops who were Never Ordained at All — Thomas Cranmer— Tes- 
timonies— Source of Ministerial Authority— Duties Must be De- 
fined—A Broken Link. 



HOMAS COKE, Kichard Wliatcoat, and Thomas 



met Mr. Asbury at Barratt's Chapel, in Maryland, on 
Sunday, Nov. 15, 1784. "I was shocked when first 
informed of the intention of these, my brethren, in 
coming to this country," says Mr. Asbury; "it may 
be of God. My answer then was, If the preachers 
unanimously choose me, I shall not act in the capacity 
I have hitherto done by Mr. Wesley's appointment. 
The design of organizing the Methodists into an In- 
dependent Episcopal Church was opened to the 
preachers present, and it was agreed to call a gen- 
eral conference, to meet at Baltimore the ensuing 
Christmas, as also that Brother Garrettcon go off to 




America in due season, and 



C3 



cm 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



Virginia to give notice thereof to our brethren in the 
South."* 

It has been alleged again and again by Protestant 
Episcopal writers that Mr. Wesley did not intend to 
organize an independent Church in the United States. 
One of these writers (the Kev. John Alden Spooner), 
in a tract entitled " Methodism as Held by Wesley," ex- 
ceeds all others by the brazen effrontery with which he 
mangles, distorts, and grossly misrepresents the writ- 
ings of Mr. Wesley and the Methodists. It would be a 
distasteful and perhaps a fruitless task to expose the 
slanders which this man has inclosed within the limits 
of a tract containing less than fifty pages. Two illus- 
trations will be given of the manner in which this ''suc- 
cessor of the apostles" has grossly, and it must be 
designedly, abused the writings of Mr. Wesley. To 
show that Mr. Wesley did not intend to establish a 
Methodist Church in America, he quotes from a letter 
written to Eev. Freeborn Garrettson two years after 
Dr. Coke's arrival in the United States. " Wherever 
there is any Church service," says Wesley to Garrett- 
son, " I do not approve of any appointment the same 
hour." (Vol. vii., p. 185.)+ 

Now, if Mr. Spooner did not know that F. Garrett- 
son was in Nora Scotia when this letter was written to 
him by Mr. Wesley, he is not the man to undertake 
to write history or to criticise the writings of others. 
Nova Scotia being outside of the United States, being 
a British province, the Church of England had some 
jurisdiction there, and an excellent Tory clergyman 
from New York was subsequently appointed bishop 



*Asbury's Journal, vol. i., p. 37G. f Methodism as Held by Wes- 
ley, p. 27. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



285 



of the province. But what shall we say of a man who 
professes to be a teacher in Israel and is either igno- 
rant enough to make a gross blunder of this kind or 
malicious enough to misrepresent and pervert the 
writings of another ? 

One more illustration will suffice. "See his em- 
phatic declaration in 1785, a year after he had entirely 
completed all this boasted change, viz.: 'Whatever 
then is done, either in America or Scotland, is no 
separation from the Church of England. I have no 
thought of this; I have many objections to it.'" (Vol. 
vii., p. 315.) * 

The annals of partisan politics will scarcely furnish 
a more palpable case of gross and willful misrepre- 
sentation. Mr. Spooner strives to make Mr. Wesley 
say that Dr. Coke was not authorized to organize a 
Church in America, and that no Church had been or- 
ganized, for whatever had been done was not a sepa- 
ration from the Church of England. Now, a mere 
glance at the paragraph from which the words quoted 
are taken will show: Firstly, there was no Church of 
England in America, therefore the organization of the 
Methodist Church in America was no separation from 
the Church of England; secondly, the English Church 
never had any jurisdiction in Scotland, therefore what- 
ever was clone in that country there was no separation 
there from the Church of England. This is Mr. Wes- 
ley's argument, and nothing but inveterate prejudice 
can fail to see it. But to such men as this writer the 
cause of "the Church" sanctifies any means, however 
vile, "for the greater glory of God." 

Beturning to the question of the organiz ation of 



* Methodism as Held by Wesley, p. 27. 



286 



The High'^cfiW'bhmixn Disarmed: 



the Church, we have only to recall the words of Mr. 
Wesley previously quoted in order to realize the situ- 
ation of the American Methodists in 1784. They re- 
garded Mr. Wesley as the man to whom, under Prov- 
idence, they owed their existence as a religious soci- 
ety. They had eighty-one traveling preachers and 
fifteen thousand members. The preachers repre- 
sented the people, not by actual election, but by the 
strongest of bonds— unity of interest and sentiment. 

"At the Christmas Conference we met to congratu- 
late each other," says the Eev. Thomas Ware, "and to 
praise the Lord that he had disposed the mind of our 
excellent Wesley to renounce the fable of uninter- 
rupted succession and prepare the way for furnishing 
us with the long-desired privileges we were thence- 
forward expecting to enjoy. The announcement of 
the plan devised by him for our organization as a 
Church filled us with solemn delight. It answered to 
what we did suppose, during our labors and priva- 
tions, we had reason to expect our God would do for 
us; for in the integrity of our hearts we verily be- 
lieved his design in raising up the preachers called 
Methodists in this country was to reform the conti- 
nent and spread scriptural holiness through these 
lands. And we accordingly looked to be indued, in 
due time, with the panoply of God. We therefore, 
according to the best of our knowledge, received and 
followed the advice of Mr. Wesley, as stated in our 
form of discipline."- Mr. Dickens proposed the 
name, " Methodist Episcopal Church," and it was 
adopted unanimously. 

"Neither Mr. Asbury nor any of his coadjutors be- 
* Memoir of Eev. Thos. Ware, p. 105. 



A Defense Of Our Methodist Fatliers 



287 



Keyed in the divine, exclusive rights of prelacy," says 
Mr. Ware, " any more than they believed in transub- 
stantiation; but they did believe that a divine inter- 
position was manifest in the rise and spread of Meth- 
odism, and that Mr. Wesley was an extraordinary 
man, who was the chief instrument in the hands of 
God in this work."* For this reason, the sixty-three 
preachers who organized the Methodist Episcopal 
Church were disposed to listen to the counsel and to 
follow the advice of the founder of Methodism. They 
did not believe him to be infallible, and therefore they 
did not follow his directions without first weighing 
every argument that could be presented for and 
against the proposed measure. They did not accept 
Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury as bishops or superintend- 
ents appointed by Mr. Wesley. They elected these 
two men by a unanimous vote of the body, and the ut- 
most harmony prevailed among them. Mr. Wesley 
required them to concede nothing, to change nothing, 
to believe nothing less or more than they held at the 
time of their meeting. 

Let the contrast be made with that Society whose 
origin forms the principal theme of Dr. White in the 
'•'Memoirs of the Church." Forty-two persons, twen- 
ty-six of whom were laymen, formed the first conven- 
tion of the Episcopalians in the United States. This 
assembly was the result of more than twelve months 
of effort and agitation looking toward the organization 
of a Church. In Baltimore, on forty days' notice, 
sixty-three American Methodists met, organized their 
Church, and adjourned to sound the trumpet of the 
gospel throughout the land. They neither asked nor 



* Memoir of Kev. Thos. Ware, p. 111. 



288 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



wanted the aid of foreign bishops nor of foreign 
princes. The Episcopalians had taxed the patience 
of John Adams and Benjamin Franklin; they had cir- 
culars issued by the President of Congress and by the 
Governors of States; they had filled the air with pitiful 
lamentations because of the desolation that had followed 
the desertion of their ministers and the inevitable re- 
sults of the struggle of a brave people for the right of 
self-government. All this, and more, characterized the 
early days of the Protestant Episcopal Church. Dur- 
ing the twenty-five months that Dr. White was wait- 
ing upon his grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
more than ten thousand souls had been converted,' 
and had joined the Methodist Church! Was ever the 
hand of God more visible in the affairs of men than 
his blessing was manifest in the prosperity of this 
the first organized Episcopal Church in America? 

Before Dr. White could be empowered to distribute 
episcopal graces in America, the Episcopalians were 
compelled to retract their doings and to modify their 
faith. They said they did not believe the article of 
the so-called Apostles' Creed which affirms the "de- 
scent of Christ into hell." The archbishop told them 
that if they did not replace this article they should 
have none of his "succession." And the convention 
voted back an article which a short time previously 
they had declared incredible.' 5 " The Bishop of Lan- 
daff (Dr. Watson) said he knew not of any scriptural 
authority for the article except 1 Peter iii. 19, 20, and 
this text he affirmed to be very doubtful.f Neverthe- 
less, he joined his brother bishops in the resolution to 
deny "the boon " o f^episcopacy to America unless the 
^White's Memoirs, p. 125. f Ibid., p. 126. 



A Defense of -Our Methodist Fathers. 



289 



omitted article was replaced in the creed. Was "the 
boon" worth the price that was paid for it? If the 
purchasers were satisfied, no one else has a right to 
complain; but let it be granted to the American Meth- 
odists that, having not the slightest faith in a pretend- 
ed "apostolical succession," they would not become 
parties to a negotiation for which they had neither 
time nor taste. 

But they do not rest their cause in the opinion of 
Mr. Wesley nor the example of Dr. Coke. The High- 
church theory of "apostolical succession" is not the 
doctrine of the Church of England. That Mr. Wes- 
ley occupied only the clerical position of a presbyter 
in the Church is admitted. But in the early Chris- 
tian Church, according to Lord King, "there are 
clearer proofs of the presbyters' ordaining than there 
are of their administering the Lord's Supper."- "It 
is acknowledged by the stoutest champions for episco- 
pacy," says Bishop Stillingfleet, "before these late 
unhappy divisions, that ordination performed by presby- 
ters is valid, which I have already shown doth evident- 
ly prove that episcopal government is not founded 
upon any unalterable divine right." f This is the 
main purpose of his great work, " The Irenicum, or 
Pacificator " — to prove that there is no form of Church 
government prescribed in the Holy Scriptures, but the 
wisdom of the age must be employed in adapting the 
institutions of the Church to the spiritual wants of 
men. 

Archbishop Whately goes farther than Bishop 
Stillingfleet, and affirms that the absence of a specific 
form of Church government in the New Testament is 

*Lord King's Primitive Church, p. 67. t^ re nicum, p. 43S. 
19 



290 



The HigK-clmrchman Disarmed: 



not only by design, but that there is proof of a spe- 
cial divine influence producing that result. "We are 
left, then," he says, "and indeed, unavoidably led. to 
the conclusion that, in respect of these points, the 
apostles and their followers were, during the age of in- 
spiration, supernaturalhj withheld from recording those 
circumstantial details which were not intended by Di- 
vine Providence to be absolutely binding on all 
Churches in every age and country, but were meant 
to be left to the discretion of each particular Church." * 
"While the principles, in short, are clearly recognized 
and strongly inculcated which Christian communities 
and individual members of them are to keep in mind 
and act upon with a view to the great objects for which 
those communities were established, the precise modes 
m which these objects are in each case to be promoted, 
are left—one can hardly doubt, studiously left— unde- 
fined." f "It was by the special appointment of the Holy 
Spirit that Paul and Barnabas were ordained to the 
very highest office— the apostleship— not by the hands 
of the other apostles or of any persons at Jerusalem, 
but by the elders of AntiocJi, This would have been 
the less remarkable had no human ordination at all 
taken place but merely a special, immediate appoint- 
ment of them by divine revelation; but the command 
given was, 'Separate me ... let them go.' "+ "There 
is not a minister in all Christendom who is able to 
trace up, with any approach to certainty, his own spir- 
itual pedigree." || 

These quotations from one of the most learned prel- 
ates in the Church of Ireland are in full accord with 

* Kingdom of Christ, p. 114. f Ibid., p. 117. f Ibid., p. 140. 
|| Ibid., p. 217. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 291 



the views of the great majority of the divines of the 
Church of England from the age of Cranmer to our 
own day. But Archbishop Whately proceeds to give 
a case in illustration of the principle that a true 
Church of Christ may be constituted by laymen only. 
He quotes from Luther as follows: " If any pious lay- 
men were banished to a desert, and, having no regu- 
larly consecrated priest among them, were to agree to 
choose for that office one of their number, married or 
unmarried, this man woukl be as truly a priest as if 
he had been consecrated by all the bishops in the 
world. Augustine, Ambrose, and Cyprian were chos- 
en in this manner. Hence, it follows that laity and 
priests, princes and bishops — or, as they say, the 
clergy and laity — have in reality nothing to distin- 
guish them but their functions. They all belong to 
tie same estate, but all have not the same work to 
perform."* 

Following this line of thought, the Archbishop pro- 
ceeds to elaborate the argument: 

"But it would be absurd to maintain that men 
ynaced in such a situation as has been here supposed 
are to be shut out, generation after generation, from 
the Christian ordinances and the gospel covenant. 
Their circumstances would constitute them — as many 
as could be brought to agree in the essentials of faith 
and Christian worship — a Christian community, and 
would require them to do that which, if done ivMhoui 
such necessity, would be schismatical. To make reg 
ulations for the Church thus constituted and to ap- 
point as its ministers the fittest persons that could be 
found among them, and to celebrate the Christian rites, 

^Kingdom of Christ, p. 317. 



292 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



would be a proceeding not productive, as in the other 
case, of division, but of union. And it would be a 
compliance clearly pointed out to them by the Provi- 
dence which had placed them in that situation with 
the manifest will of our heavenly Master that Chris- 
tians should live in a religious community under such 
officers and regulations as are essential to the exist- 
ence of every community. 

"To say that Christian ministers thus appointed 
would be, to all intents and purposes, real legitimate 
Christian ministers, and that the ordinances of such 
a Church would be no less valid and efficacious— sup- 
posing always that they are not in themselves super- 
stitious and unscriptural — than those of any other 
Church, is merely to say in other words that it would 
be a real Christian Church; possessing, consequently, 
in common with all communities, of whatever kind, 
the essential rights of a community to have officers 
and by-laws; and possessing also, in common with all 
Christian communities—?, e., Churches— the especial 
sanction of our Lord and his promise of ratifying 
(' binding in heaven ') its enactments. 

"It really does seem not only absurd but even im- 
pious to represent it as the Lord's will that persons 
who are believers in his gospel should, in consequence 
of the circumstances in which his providence has 
placed them, condemn themselves and their posterity 
to live as heathens, instead of conforming as closely 
as those circumstances will allow to the institutions 
and directions of Christ and his apostles by combin- 
ing themselves into a Christian society, regulated and 
conducted in the best way they can on gospel princi- 
ples. And if such a society does enjoy the divine 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 293 



blessing and favor, it follows that its proceedings, its 
enactments, its officers, are legitimate and apostolical 
as long as they are conformable to the principles which 
the apostles have laid down and recorded for our use, 
even as those — of whatever race 'after the flesh' — 
who embraced and faithfully adhered to the gospel 
were called by the apostles 'Abraham's seed ' and ' the 
Israel of God.' The ministers of such a Church as I 
have been supposing would rightly claim ' apostolical 
succession,' because they would rightful!}/ hold the 
same office which the apostles conferred on those ' eld- 
ers whom they ordained in every city.'"* 

The claims of High-churchmen to a regular succes- 
sion of bishops handing down ministerial authority 
from the days of the apostles are so absurd that there 
is no writer who has seriously attempted to prove a 
true succession. The existence of officers called bish- 
ops can be proved beyond a doubt, for presbyters were 
so called by St. Paul. There has been no century, no 
generation, no day in the time intervening in which 
bishops have not existed in the Church. But this ad- 
mission lacks a great deal of proving that these offi- 
cers called " bishops " exercised the same powers, per- 
formed the same duties, or followed each other in a 
tactual succession. The bishops who figure in the so- 
called "lines" of succession displayed in Chapin's 
" Primitive Church " and books of the same class are 
mere disconnected units, and constitute a "chain" in 
the same way that a thousand grains of sand make a 
rope. They received nothing from each other, they 
gave nothing to each other; and therefore they were 
not connected with each other. If not so connected, 



* Kingdom of Christ, pp. 232-234. 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



they can in no proper sense form a succession for the 
transmission of authority. The High-church view 
of this question is thus examined by Archbishop 
AVhately: 

" The sacramental virtue— for such it is that is im- 
plied, whether the term be used or not in the princi- 
ple I have been speaking of— dependent on the impo- 
sition of hands, with a clue observance of apostolical 
usages, by a bishop himself duly consecrated, after 
having been in like manner baptized into the Church 
and ordained deacon and priest — this sacramental 
virtue, if a single link of the chain be faulty, must, 
on the above principle, be utterly nullified ever after 
in respect of all the links that hang on that one. For 
if a bishop had not been duly consecrated, or had not 
been previously rightly ordained, his ordinations are 
null; and so are the ministrations of those ordained 
by him, and their ordinations of others — supposing 
any of the persons ordained by him to attain to the 
episcopal office — and so on without end. The poison- 
ous taint of informality, if it once creep in undetect- 
ed, will spread the infection of nullity to an indefinite 
and irremediable extent. And who can undertake to 
pronounce that, during that long period usually des- 
ignated as the Dark Ages, no such taint ever was in- 
troduced? Irregularities could not have been wholly 
excluded without a perpetual miracle; and that no such 
miraculous interference existed we have even historical 
proof. . . . ^Ye read of bishops consecrated when mere 
children; of men officiating who barely knew their 
letters; of prelates expelled, and others put into their 
places by violence ; of illiterate and profligate laymen 
and habitual drunkards admitted to holy orders; and, 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers: 295 



in short, of the prevalence of every kind of disorder 
and reckless disregard of the decency which the apos- 
tle enjoins. It is inconceivable that any one even 
moderately acquainted with history can feel a certain- 
ty, or any approach to certainty, that amidst all this 
confusion and corruption every requisite form was, in 
every instance, strictly adhered to by men, many of 
them openly profane and secular, unrestrained by 
public opinion, through the gross ignorance of the 
population among which they lived, and that no one 
not duly consecrated, or ordained, was admitted to 
sacred offices. . . . Even in the memory of persons 
living there existed a bishop concerning whom there 
was so much mystery and uncertainty pervading as to 
when, where, and by whom he had been ordained that 
doubts existed in the minds of some persons whether 
he had ever been ordained at all." * 

At the first mention of these facts it may occur to 
the reader that an office of such dignity and value as 
that of a Christian bishop would necessarily be guard- 
ed against the influences mentioned by the Archbishop. 
But it is necessary to consider that when the doctrine 
of modern High-churchmen was unknown it would be 

* Kingdom of Christ, p. 217. I have a copy of Archbishop Whate- 
ly's work which was once owned by the Eev. William Eobertson, of 
Monzuvaird. On the above passage Mr. E. remarks: "Bishop But- 
ler was never baptized. Archbishop Seeker was baptized by a Pres- 
byterian. It is admitted by ecclesiastical writers that there is no 
record, no certainty, and not much probability of the consecration of 
the following bishops: Downham, of Chester; Stanley, of Sodor; 
May, of Carlisle; Loyd, of Sodor; Potter, of Carlisle; Forster, of 
Sodor; Parr, of Sodor; Feme, of Chester; Eainbow, of Carlisle; 
Wilkins, of Chester; Bridgewater, of Sodor; Smith, of Carlisle; 
Strafford, of Chester; Pearson, of Chester;" etc. 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



absurd to expect any measure to be observed for the 
preservation of "episcopal succession." The essen- 
tial principle in the case is the true source of episcopal 
powers. Did the bishop derive his authority from his 
brethren in office, or from his clerical or civil supe- 
rior? If he received his office by the gift of the 
Pope, then the Pope's mandate for his consecration 
covered all irregularities, and the Roman pallium was 
a substitute for any and all species of ordination. 
"When the office was the gift of the King, the royal 
authority only was essential to the bishop. Cranmer, 
the great leader in the English Reformation, declared 
that ordination was not essential to the episcopal of- 
fice.* The observance of a form of consecration was 
more in keeping with the dignity of the office, bat 
it was not necessary to the discharge of its duties. 
Hence it was that the ecclesiastical authority proceed- 
ing from the King, the royal appointment was the es- 
sence of the episcopal office. This position can be 
established beyond cavil. 

Let us take the case of Thomas Cranmer as an ex- 
ample. Dr. Field, in his " Book of the Church," says: 
" Hereunto agree all the best learned amongst the Ro- 
manists themselves, freely confessing that that where- 
in a bishop excelleth a presbyter is not a distinct and 
higher power of order, but a kind of dignity and of- 
fice or employment only. Which they prove, because 
a presbyter ordained per saltum that never was conse- 
crated or ordained deacon may notwithstanding do 
all those acts that pertain to the deacon's order, be- 
cause the higher order doth always imply in it the 

*Irenieum, p. 415; Burnet: Collection of Eecords, vol. I, part 11. 
p. 317. ' 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 297 



lower and inferior in an eminent and excellent sort. 
But a bishop ordained per sa lt a m that never had the 
ordination of a presbyter can neither consecrate and 
administer the sacrament of the Lord's body, nor or- 
dain a presbyter — himself being none — nor do any 
act peculiarly pertaining to presbyters. Whereby it 
is most evident that that wherein a bishop excelleth a 
presbyter is not a distinct power of order, but an em- 
inence and dignity only, specially yielded to one above 
all the rest of the same rank for order's sake and to 
preserve the unity and peace of the Church."* 

There is scarcely any event in history that can be 
established more positively than the fact that Cran- 
mer was made an archbishop without having held any 
see previously, and that he teas never ordained a pres- 
byter or priest in the Church of Kome. He took the 
degree of Doctor of Divinity, and was made a divin- 
ity lecturer, and he Avas a felloAV of Jesus College, 
Cambridge. By his first marriage he forfeited his 
fellowship, but was restored on the death of his wife. 
He was, however, a married man when he was made 
archbishop. He hesitated some time before accept- 
ing this office, but "he lived in an age," says Le Bas, 
one of his biographers, "when to decline an office 
imposed by the sovereign was regarded as an act of 
almost treasonable contumacy." f Now, the question 
must be met in the plain, unmistakable words of Dr. 
Field. The functions of a deacon are included in 
those of a presbyter, but the consecration of a bishop 
does not convey the powers of a presbyter. As Cran- 
mer had no ordination as a presbyter, he was not a 

* Field: Of the Church, b. lii., c. 39. f Le Bas: Life of Cran- 
mer, vol. i., p, 54. 



298 The Higlt-chtirchman Disarmed: 



true bishop, although consecrated to the office by valid 
bishops, and appointed thereto by the King. Botnan- 
ists have alleged that " he was consecrated by no bish- 
op, but thrust in by the King alone." This, however, 
is disproved by Fuller, who produces the register and 
gives the names of three bishops who consecrated 
him.* Cranmer w T as confirmed by the Pope, and by 
the practice of that age, and for many years prior to 
that time, the receipt of the pall from Borne was the 
visible proof of the divine appointment to the see. 
He took the oath of allegiance to the Pope, wider pro- 
test, and thus was a canonical bishop, in the Catholic 
sense, notwithstanding his protest. 

" Thus was a private Churchman raised," says Gil- 
pin, "at one step to the first dignity of his profession; 
and, though the truth of history hath obliged us to 
confess that he took some steps not quite so direct as 
might be wished in this hasty advancement, yet we 
cannot by any means consider him as a man who had 
formed any settled plans of ambition which he was 
resolved at all hazards to support; but that, in what 
he did amiss, he was rather violently borne down by 
the King's authority." f He was consecrated, says 
Le Neve, by '"papal provision, Bull dated 9 Cal. Mar. 
(February 22), 1532; consecrated March 30, 1533." % 

But the point at issue is the question, Do all minis- 
terial powers and functions inhere in and belong to 
the office of a bishop? If so, Cranmer was a canon- 
ical bishop in the sense of the High-church theory. 
But if the order of presbyters possess the powers at- 
tributed to them in the Scriptures, he who has only 

* Church History of Great Britain, vol. ii., p. 35. f Life of Arch- 
bishop Cranmer, p. 27. % Le Neve: Fasti Ecclesias Anglicana?, p. 8. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



299 



the ordination of a bishop has no ecclesiastical au- 
thority to administer the sacraments of the Church. 
He may be an overseer, a superintendent; but a lay- 
man may be also. There is nothing definite in the 
term "superintendent." It may mean the overseer of 
a cotton-factory, of a railroad, or of a rolling-mill, as 
well as of a Church. Mere oversight defines nothing; 
and it is essentially the looking over, superintending 
the affairs of the Church that is involved in the office 
of bishop as we find it in the New Testament. Unless 
some specific duties are defined, we cannot attach any 
meaning to the word "bishop" when it occurs in the 
early history of the Church. There is nothing more 
certain than that a bishop in the time of St. Paul was 
a very different officer from the bishop four centuries 
later, and this again a different functionary from the 
bishop of the fifteenth century. The bishop of the 
second century and the bishop of the Church of En- 
gland at this hour resembled each other as little as 
the President of the United States resembles the 
King of Great Britain. 

Thus at the very first link in the English chain of 
the "apostolical succession" we find a flaw that severs 
the connection between the ministry of the Preforma- 
tion and of the present time, and those who handed 
down the episcopal depositum through the Church of 
Eome. It is a clergyman of the Church of England 
who uses these words of equal severity and truth: " On 
the whole, the conclusion arrived at is as follows: 
The notion of the intrinsic importance of episcopal 
succession has originated neither in the Scriptures, in 
reason, nor in history; but, as far as the officers of the 
Church are themselves concerned, it has originated in 



300 The High-church ma n Dtsannech 



the love of power and ambition; on tile part of the 
laity in gross ignorance and culpable negligence, in 
superstition, and more particularly in the vain and 
imbecile desire of being religious by proxy, of ob- 
taining the privileges, the comforts, and the rewards 
of Christianity— not through their own, but through 
the exertions of others; the propensity to attach a 
vicarious character to Christian ministers which is so 
utterly inconsistent with the spirit of Christianity. 
Instead, therefore, of giving the successionists any 
credit for their agitation of this unscriptural super- 
stition, whatever the motives may be of the present 
successionists, every true-hearted Churchman must 
view with alarm and distrust any endeavor to renew 
that system which occupied so prominent a place in 
the great spiritual tyranny by which our ancestors 
were enthralled." * 

* Hints for the Eevival of Scriptural Principles in the Anglican 
Church, by the Kev. George Bird, rector of Ct-mberworth, p. 64. 



Chapter mi 



Leaving Mr. Wesley's Name off the Minutes — Wesley's Adherence 
to the Church — Xo Separation in America — The Methodists Pre- 
ceded the Episcopalians — The "Obedience Minute" — A Serious 
Blunder — Disliked by Asbury and Whatcoat — Impracticable and 
Useless — Purity of Wesley's Motives — Coke Reported to Wesley 
— Attacks upon Coke in England — His Address to the President 
Criticized — Mr. Wesley Interested in the Affairs of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in America — He Caused Changes which were 
Attributed to Coke — Debate Concerning Them — Coke Proposes to 
Abide the Decision — Wesley Appoints R. Whatcoat a Bishop — 
The Conference Objects to the Claim of Supreme Authority — 
Whatcoat not Elected — The Pcepeal of the Minute — Difficult Po^ 
sition of Asbury — A Constitutional Question — A Settlement — 
Asbury Meets Mr. Wesley's Displeasure — The "Bitter Pill" — 
Censured for the Fault of Another. 

A MONG the events of a disturbing character in 



J~~\_ the early history of Methodism are two that 
are intimately connected. " The leaving Mr. Wesley's 
name off the minutes" and the letter of reproof from 
Mr. Wesley to Bishop Asbury are worthy of conspicu- 
ous places in our Church history. The famous letter, 
in which, the founder of Methodism reproves Asbury 
for permitting himself to be called a "bishop," has 
seen yeoman's service in the hands of Protestant Epis- 
copal writers. By piecemeal and as a whole it is to 
be found in books of all grades and degrees, begin- 
ning with the recent effort of Kev. John Alden Spoon- 
er and rising to authors of high degree. It is there 
too to prove that Mr. "Wesley never intended to organ- 




(301) 



302 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



ize any thing in America on an independent footing; 
certainly not a Church, and above all not an Episcopal 
Church. 

Mr. Wesley was but human; and while he was as 
free from the foibles and follies of humanity as any 
good and great man has ever been known to be, he 
was not infallible. As he grew older, one of the 
marked tendencies of his mind was to distrust his 
own judgment, and to cherish a spirit of abounding 
charity for the opinions of others. He took no im- 
portant step in haste, without due consideration. Those 
who assert that his ordination of Dr. Coke was an act 
performed from impulse are not competent judges of 
any action in which their prejudices are involved. 
He had been considering the subject for nearly forty 
years. Separation from the Church of England, and 
the constitution of an independent Church, was a ques- 
tion that agitated the Methodists at the time of the 
Calvinistic controversy occasioned by Mr. Whitefield 
and his friends. 

To Mr. Wesley's mind, however, there were but two 
methods by which a man or a society of men could 
separate from the Church of England. To hold serv- 
ice in England at the same hour with the minister of 
the parish was to promote separation and to establish 
an independent Church. This Mr. Charles Wesley 
did, while John Wesley steadfastly refused to bring 
his ministrations into competition with those of the 
Establishment. One other method of separation he 
held to be refusing to join in the service and to par- 
take of the sacraments. No Methodist in Europe or 
America having the opportunity refuses at this day to 
join in the service or to partake of the sacrament of 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 303 



the Lord's Sapper in any Church when there is rea- 
son to believe that such communion is desired. 

But in America there was no separation in 1784. 
There could be none where there was no Church from 
which to separate. Episcopalianism previous to the 
Revolutionary War had never risen to the dignity of* 
a Church. There was no legal jurisdiction, even of 
the Bishop of London, in any of the colonies. A few 
zealous men, like Dr. White, of Pennsylvania, were 
seeking to organize a Church. But there were only 
five ministers in the State besides himself, and by this 
number of persons he was sent to Canterbury in search 
of the succession. " The nomination of Dr. Seabury 
appears to have been a hasty and premature measure, 
though dictated by the best intentions," says Dr. 
Hook in his preface to the Life of Bishop Hobart.* 
The archbishop and bishops in England did not feel 
warranted in ordaining a man with such a small fol- 
lowing, even if no legal restraints existed. But Dr. 
Seabury was chosen by ten clergymen and indorsed 
by three others in New York. Dr. White had the 
suffrages of three clergymen and the indorsement of 
two others. There were two self-sustaining parishes 
in Philadelphia, and none in Connecticut; and this, 
doubtless, was in Dr. White's favor. Dr. Seabury's 
failure furnished those who came after with several 
important suggestions. The Danish correspondence 
was a happy incident. It brought the matter before 
Congress, and by the action of the president of that 
body the affair took somewhat of a public interest. 
Governors of States were informed that the United 
States could have the gospel by the grace of Denmark; 



;; Preface, p, xvii. 



304 The High-ch ui *climan Disarmed: 



at least episcopally ordained ministers could be had, 
if not episcopal officers themselves. By urging cer- 
tain measures . before the Legislatures it would be 
easy to obtain something resembling a legal sanction 
of episcopacy. The use of a little guile might be over- 
looked at the beginning of an era of peace. "It was 
a prudent provision of the convention," says Dr. 
White, "to instruct the deputies from the respective 
States to apply to the . civil authorities existing in 
them respectively for their sanction of the measure, 
in order to avoid one of the impediments which had 
stood in the. way of Bishop Seabury." * Of course 
this " sanction " was an accommodating term. It was 
flexible enough to wear the interpretation of a request 
from the civil authorities. The " authorities " had no 
objection to the importation of bishops for the Epis- 
copal Church, as they had no antipathy to the bishops 
ordained by the Baptists in Virginia in 1776. If a 
thing is not objected to, it is sanctioned of course. 
So that Dr. White and Dr. Provoost went forth with 
the sanction of Pennsylvania and New York. The 
archbishop and bishops knew nothing about the mat- 
ter any further, except that, with or without sanction, 
the expurgated "creed" must be restored. 

It was managed with great skill. When the Amer- 
ican States were under King George, an English bishop 
for America was a terror to all lovers of religious lib- 
erty. But when the American States were a free and 
independent people, the archbishop and all his suf- 
fragans might have moved themselves and their " sees " 
to the United States. What did a free people care 
then for the tyranny of bishops? The matter was 

Memoirs, p. 114. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 305 



ridiculous. And yet Dr. White and his followers 
are surprised that there should be so much unanim- 
ity in sanctioning, when there had been almost equal 
unanimity in opposing, American bishops. These gen- 
tlemen could not see that My Lord of London is not 
precisely the same officer as plain Dr. White of Phil- 
adelphia. A bishop clothed with political power in 
the Legislature differs somewhat from the bishop who 
has one vote at the ballot-box. 

By the Methodists there was one ill-advised meas- 
ure adopted at their organization. It was disliked, 
and under proper circumstances would have been op- 
posed, by Bishop Asbury. The following question 
and answer contain the whole subject-matter at issue: 

" Q. 2. What can be done in order to the future 
union of the Methodists? Ans. During the life of 
the Eev. Mr. Wesley we acknowledge ourselves his 
sons in the gospel, ready in matters belonging to Church 
government to obey his commands. And we do en- 
gage after his death to do every thing that we judge 
consistent with the cause of religion in America and 
the political interests of these States to preserve and 
promote our union with the Methodists in Europe."* 

That was a serious blunder. " I was mute and mod- 
est when it passed," said Mr. Asbury. "I did not 
think it practical expediency to obey Mr. Wesley at 
three thousand miles distance in all matters of Church 
government; neither did Brother Whatcoat nor sev- 
eral others." f But, having been proposed, it was al- 
most impossible, at that time, to oppose it. Who 
could do so without the fear of having his motives 
questioned? Twelve months, two years later, opposi- 
* Minutes of 1785. fAsbury's Journal, vol. ii., p. 270. 



306 



tion might have been tolerated, and sober reason would 
have prevailed. But Mr. Wesley had been so accom- 
modating to them— pronouncing them free from all 
entanglements whatsoever — what could be more nat- 
ural than one act of real enthusiasm in return for all 
this kindness ? J ohn Wesley wanted no man's money; 
he sought honor from no man; he desired to have no 
power over men further than that which began and 
ended with the soul's welfare. This he sought to ad- 
vance, but not by laying under tribute the time, prop- 
erty, or conscience of any man. 

Within six months of the adjournment of the Christ- 
mas Conference, Dr. Coke had returned to Europe and 
made his report to Mr. Wesley. The famous epigram 
of Charles Wesley appeared at this time, and fur- 
nished one implement of annoyance, if it did no more. 
The assertion that Charles had not been consulted in 
the matter of the ordination, and that he knew noth- 
ing about it for some time afterward, cannot be recon- 
ciled with the facts. He was in Bristol at the time, 
and although he was not invited to be present, it was 
for the reason that his brother knew it was useless to 
argue the question any further. It was not in the 
power of Charles Wesley to alter the resolution of 
his brother John. A dozen times, in person and by 
letter, the subject had been discussed by them, until 
they had " agreed to disagree." 

But the return of Dr. Coke was the occasion for 
strong and repeated attacks that had a more plausible 
occasion. In his ordination sermon in Baltimore, Dr. 
Coke had expressed himself in unqualified terms 
against the union of Church and State. Being an 
Englishman and a member of a State Church, this lan- 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



307 



guage was excepted to, and with at least the appear- 
ance of justice. But Dr. Coke explained his meaning 
to the effect that, while he preferred the Establish- 
ment for Great Britain in a mixed monarchy, he 
thought the principle of voluntary support a far bet- 
ter one for the people of a republic. There is no nec- 
essary contradiction in this assertion. There are many 
Americans who, while they would resist to the last 
resort an attempt to establish any Church in America, 
believe, nevertheless, that the State Church of En- 
gland ought to remain as a venerable institution that 
lias served many good purposes in times past, and has 
not yet finished its mission. Under the very eye of 
Mr. Wesley it was charged upon Dr. Coke that he had 
acted in contradiction to the record and the principles 
of the Wesleys in organizing an independent Church in 
America. In answer, Dr. Coke affirmed that he had 
followed the instructions he had received from Mr. 
Wesley. Now, if Dl\ Coke had misrepresented this 
venerable man, can any one believe that Mr. Wesley 
would have remained silent, permitting his intentions 
to be misconstrued? So far from it, there is positive 
proof not only that Mr. Wesley approved of what 
had been done, but that he proceeded to interest 
himself still further in the management of the Amer- 
ican Methodist Church. He accepted the declara- 
tion of the Conference of 1784 in good faith that the 
American preachers were "ready in matters belong- 
ing to Church government to obey his commands." 
Doubtless he thought himself sufficiently acquainted 
with the wants of the people, and the capacity of 
some of the preachers at least, to undertake to give 
direction to their labors. Hence, when Pr. Coke 



308 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



made his second voyage to America Lis presence was 
the occasion for debate, and the discussion ended in- 
several measures of interest. The times of holding 
the Conferences of 1787 had been changed. The pret 
vious year it had been agreed that the first Confer- 
ence should be held at Salisbury, North Carolina, 
May 17, 1787; the second at Petersburg, Virginia' 
June 19, 1787; and the third at Abingdon, Maryland,' 
July 24, 1787. But these Conferences were actually 
held— the first at Charleston, March 25; the second at 
William White's, April 19; and the third at Balti- 
more, May 1."* It will be easily seen that such 
changes as these would produce confusion and disor- 
der among preachers and people. 

Dr. Coke was assailed at once as the cause of these 
irregularities. "We had some warm and close de- 
bates in Conference," says Mr. Asbury under date of 
May 6, u but all ended in love and peace." The preach- 
ers thought he was taking too much authority upon 
himself, and he had exercised it in a way most certain 
to produce hardships among all parties concerned. 
Then it was made known that the changes in the 
times of the Conferences had been made by Mr. Wes- 
ley, and not by Dr. Coke. The following letter from 
the man whom they had promised to obey produced 
no little commotion. Under date of September 6, 
1786, Mr. Wesley wrote to Dr. Coke : " I desire that you 
would appoint a General Conference of all our preach- 
ers in the United States to meet at Baltimore on May 
the 1st, 1787; and that Mr. Kichard Whatcoat maybe 
appointed superintendent with Mr. Francis Asbury." + 

*Vide Asbury's Journal, vol. ii., passim. fEtheridge: Life of 
Coke, p. 223. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 309 



In the first place, the preachers were scattered over 
a section extending more than a thousand miles in a 
straight line, and comprising a larger territory than 
that occupied by twenty countries the size of England. 
To bring these preachers together in a General Con- 
ference upon such short notice was simply impossi- 
ble. To do this, moreover, for the purpose of accepting 
a bishop appointed by Mr. Wesley, was a strict construc- 
tion of their Minute of 1784, it is true, but it would 
have involved the surrender of the right of self-gov- 
ernment, and this they never intended to do.* 

Dr. Coke, as the immediate representative of Mr. 
Wesley, as soon as he was aware of the principles in- 
volved, wrote and signed the following declaration: 

*In the "Lives of Eminent Methodist Ministers," by the Rev. 
P. Douglas Gorrie, page 218, is the following statement: "Mr. 
Whatcoat was an Englishman, an old and valued minister; one too 
who had been designated three years previously, by Mr. Wesley 
himself, as a proper person to be selected as a bishop of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, and who had even requested his election to 
that office." There are two errors in this extract — one relating to 
the date of Mr. Wesley's action, and the other as to the act? itself. 
Mr. Whatcoat was elected bishop in 1800, and Mr. Wesley died in 
1791. It was impossible that this recommendation of Mr. What- 
coat could have been given only three years before this General 
Conferenca met. The true date is 1786 in which Mr. Wesley des- 
ignated Mr. Whatcoat as a fit person to be made a bishop. But Mr. 
Gorrie is in error as to the character of the action. Mr. Wesley did 
not request the election of Whatcoat, he commanded it. " I desire 
that Mr. Richard Whatcoat may be appointed superintendent with 
Mr. Francis Asbury." These are the words of instruction to Dr. 
Coke, and the bearer of the message, as well as the members of the 
Conference, understood these words as mandatory. No other con- 
struction can be placed upon them; for it was the fact of his issuing 
the command that led to the repeal of the "Obedience Minute." An 
important constitutional question is at issue, and therefore it is nec- 
essary that the error of this excellent historian should be corrected. 



310 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



I do solemnly engage by this instrument that I never will, by 
virtue of my office as superintendent of the Methodist Church, dur- 
ing my absence from the United States of America, exercise any 
government whatever in said Methodist Church. And I do also 
engage that I will exercise no privilege in the said Church when 
present except that of ordaining according to the regulations and 
laws already existing, or hereafter to be made, in said Church, and 
that of presiding when present in Conference, and lastly that of trav- 
eling at large. Given under my hand the second day of May, in 
the year 1787. Thomas Coke.* 

It was evident that Dr. Coke could not make the 
appointments of the preachers with the slender knowl- 
edge which he possessed, both of the personnel of the 
Conferences and the necessities of the people. Bish- 
op Asbury, living among them for nearly twenty years, 
was qualified for this episcopal work as far as any one 
man could be at that time. But, in the nature of the 
case, it was impossible for any man to give entire sat- 
isfaction to all parties. Thus the preachers, willing 
to submit to hardships and even avoidable evils occa- 
sioned by Bishop Asbury's errors, were not inclined 
to yield a similar consent to the appointments of Dr. 
Coke. 

But there was much at stake in this controversy. 
It was not with Dr. Coke alone that the issue was 
joined. Mr. Wesley must be informed that, while 
they had lost no respect for him, and had declined in 
no particular from the universal desire to work in 
harmony with him in the Lord's vineyard, yet three 
thousand miles separated them from him, and that 
barrier was insuperable. At that distance he could 
not know, and without knowledge ought not to attempt 
to govern or direct in the internal affairs of the 
Church. Moreover, there was a constitutional ques- 
* Bangs: History of the M. E. Church, vol. I, p. 258. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 311 



tion involved. They were no longer a Society; they 
were a Church. They possessed ministers, sacraments, 
forms of government and officers duly elected, and all 
that belonged to a regularly organized Church of 
Christ 

It was a delicate duty to select a bishop for this 
Church. In the first instance they had credited Mr. 
Wesley's appointment of Dr. Coke, and had elected 
him purely on the ground of his appointment. But 
Mr. Asbury they knew, and they elected him because 
they knew him. He had proved himself a man of 
prudence, living in the days of the greatest peril in 
a manner that commanded the respect of all parties. 
In the days that were the darkest in our history, Fran- 
cis Asbury never faltered for a moment. Suspected 
because he was an Englishman by birth, he did not 
publish his patriotism from the house-tops, but those 
who knew him most intimately knew that he was a 
friend to his adopted country* 

Mr. Whatcoat had been in America but a little more 
than two years. He was an excellent and an able 
man, but he was comparatively unknown to either the 
preachers or the people. He might prove to be the 
right man for the episcopacy, but it was not probable 
that Mr, Wesley could know the fact, But if he did 
know it; if it were true, there could be and ought to 
be no yielding upon this issue. In adopting the Min- 
ute of 1784 they did not mean to constitute a dictator 
to whom unquestioning obedience belonged. They 
would yield to Mr. Wesley's judgment in regard to 
any principle of Church government, but they could 
not allow him to select their Church officers, 
* E. Cooper's Funeral Discourse^ p. 99. 



312 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



The result was that, on motion of James 'Kelly, 
the Conference declined to receive the appointment 
of Richard Whatcoat as a superintendent or bishop 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church. This is beyond 
doubt Bishop Asbury's meaning when he says: "Did 
not J. O'K. set aside the appointment of Richard 
Whatcoat? and did not the Conference in Baltimore 
strike that minute out of our Discipline which was 
called a rejecting of Mr. Wesley? " * 

Here, then, we have the affair of " leaving Mr. Wes- 
ley's name off the minutes." The edition of the Dis- 
cipline of 1785 contains the minute of obedience to Mr. 
Wesley in matters of Church government. The edi- 
tion of 1787 omits this minute. But it seems to be 
extremely difficult to place some of these historical 
questions in an accurate form before the public. Dr. 
Etheridge, in his excellent "Life of Dr. Coke," speak- 
ing of the substitution of "bishops" for "superin- 
tendents," creates the impression that the word "bish- 
ops" appeared for the first time in the "Minutes" of 
1787. "In accordance with this measure," he says, 
" there is a manifesto in the American Minutes for 
1787 which declares, ' We have constituted ourselves 
an Episcopal Church under the direction of bishops, 
elders, deacons, and preachers, according to the form 
of ordination annexed to our Prayer-book and the 
regulations laid down in the Form of Discipline.' "f 

Now, this statement is not correct. There was noth- 
ing corresponding to a " manifesto " in 1787. The Min- 
utes of the "Christmas Conference," 1784-5, after giv- 
ing Mr. Wesley's letter, proceed as follows: "There- 
fore, at this Conference, we formed ourselves into an 

*Asbury's Journal, vol. ii., p. 270. f Life of Coke, p. 225. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 313 



independent Church; and, following the counsel of Mr. 
John Wesley, who recommended the episcopal mode of 
Church government, we thought it best to become an 
Episcopal Church, making the episcopal office elective, 
and the elected superintendent, or bishop, amenable to 
the body of ministers and preachers." * Nor is this 
all. In the letter of Mr. Wesley notifying the Amer- 
ican brethren of the appointment of Coke and As- 
bury as "joint superintendents,'" there is in the Min- 
utes an asterisk at the end of the word " superintend- 
ents," and these words form a foot-note: u As the 
translators of our version of the Bible have used the 
English word bishop instead of superintendent, it has 
been thought by us that it w 7 ould appear more script- 
ural to adopt their term bishop." 

Let it be kept in mind that there are two printed 
forms under the name of "Minutes." The first of 
these is styled, "Minutes taken at the several Annual 
Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church for the 
year 1785." The second has a lengthy title: "Min- 
utes of several Conversations between Rev. Thomas 
Coke, LL.D., the Rev. Francis Asbury, and others, 
at a Conference begun in Baltimore, in the State of 
Maryland, on Monday, the 27th of December, in 
the year 1784. Composing a Form of Discipline for 
the Ministers, Preachers, and other Members of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in America. 1785." 
This last is indeed the book of Discipline in its orig- 
inal form. It contains none of the minute questions 
properly so called; but it does contain the words 
equivalent to those found in the Discipline, not the 
Minutes of 1787. In order to distinguish them it is 

* Minutes for 178c. 



314 The Righ-chxirchman Disarmed. 



proper to call the one the Annual Minutes and the 
other the Form of Discipline. Now, the Minutes of 
1785 give the word "bishop" as the scriptural equiva- 
lent for " superintendent," so that it is no afterthought, 
but the clearly expressed purpose at the time of the or- 
ganization of the Church. But the "Annual Minutes " 
do not record the first question with the word "bish- 
op " until 1788, 

Thus we have arrived at the solution of the ques- 
tion, " What is meant by leaving Mr. Wesley's name 
off the Minutes?" It is neither more nor less than 
the act of expunging, in 1787, a statement adopted in 
1784 to the effect that the Methodist Episcopal Church 
in America would obey the commands of Mr. Wesley 
in regard to Church government, It was an unwise 
resolution when adopted, and probably its full force 
and meaning were not understood by those who adopt- 
ed it. The first proposition to put it in force devel- 
oped the nature of the resolution and led to its imme- 
diate repeal. 

But the consequences of this act of repeal were 
by no means pleasant to one of those who had noth- 
ing to do with adopting the measure or with the act 
of expunging it, Francis Asbury was charged with 
a variety of motives in bringing about this repeal. It 
is a humiliating fact that the very man who led the 
Conference in rejecting the appointment of Mr. What- 
coat as a superintendent, or bishop, endeavored to 
poison the mind of Mr. Wesley against Bishop As- 
bury. Nor was James O'Kelly alone in these efforts. 
Beverly Alien was an unfortunate man, whose early 
career gave great promise of usefulness. But he came 
to a sad end. " Poor Beverly Alien! " exclaims Bish- 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 315 



op Asbury; "he lias been going from bad to worse 
these seven or eight years, speaking against me to 
preachers and people, and writing to Mr. Wesley and 
Dr. Coke, and being thereby the source of most mis- 
chief that has followed."* 

O'Kelly was for nearly ten years in one of the best 
districts in Virginia — perhaps really the best — " part of 
the time in the very best circuits," says the Bishop, 
" and then in the district as presiding elder;" but "I 
could not settle him for life in the south district of Vir- 
ginia. " f Beverly Allen was a restless, dissatisfied spir- 
it, and seems to have encouraged all parties to make 
strife and trouble. Bishop Asbury is charged with am- 
bition, and why? "Because I did not establish Mr. 
Wesley's absolute authority over the American Con- 
nection. For myself, this I had submitted to; but 
the Americans were too jealous to bind themselves to 
yield to him in all things relative to Church govern- 
ment. Mr. W T esley was a man they had never seen— 
was three thousand miles off— how might submission 
in such a case be expected? Brother Coke and myself 
gave offense to the Connection by enforcing Mr. Wes- 
ley's will in some matters; for which I do not blame 
Mr. Wesley. Like other great men, he had his elbow- 
friends; and like other people, I had my enemies.";}: 

Who Mr. Wesley's "elb ow-friencls" were, we can 
only conjecture. But two of Bishop Asbury's ene- 
mies we have named. They were men of ability, and 
the very conditions that surrounded the venerable man 
gave abundant stimulus to malice, prejudice, and every 
evil pa ssio n. It mig ht be an act of injustice to construe 

^•Journal, Jan. 20, 1794. f Ibid., July 19, 179S. + Ibid., Jan. 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



positively some references in Asbury's Journal which 
seem to indicate the unkind attitude of Thomas Eankin 
in England. He and Asbury differed at the opening of 
the war. He left, and Asbury remained in the country. 
He sunk into comparative oblivion, and Asbury had 
risen to a fame second only to that of Wesley. But it 
is not hazarding any thing to say that Mr. Eankin did 
nothing to defend Asbury when traduced by enemies 
in America. 

Such was the situation of Francis Asbury in 1788, 
when Mr. Wesley's famous letter was written. That 
we may have all the light bearing upon this document, 
the dates of important incidents must be recalled. 
The "minute of obedience" was passed in December, 
1784. It was repealed in May, 1787. Dr. Coke left 
for Europe on the 27th of May, three weeks after the 
close of Mr. Wesley's "General Conference." He 
arrived in Dublin on the 25th of June, in time for 
the midsummer Wesleyan Conference. Nothing of 
unusual character is found in any of the Journals 
during the remainder of the year. It does not ap- 
pear that Mr. Wesley was offended at the intelligence 
from America. Perhaps Dr. Coke did not tell him 
of the "expunging act" passed in Baltimore. But 
he must have told him that the Conference had re- 
fused to accept Mr. Whatcoat as a superintendent. 
This, however delicate the task, Dr. Coke could not 
fail to report to Mr. Wesley. But that great man 
shows no evidence of a wounded spirit for more than 
twelve months after the provocation occurred. Was it 
because he was " slow to anger ? " No ; bat because he 
would have taken no personal offense if the American 
busybodies and tale-bearers had been better employed. 



A Defense of Our MethodiM Fathers 



317 



But Beverly Allen's letter came into the field at this 
juncture. He writes to Coke and Wesley. If the 
mind of Dr. Coke was a little soured because of the 
treatment of Mr. Wesley at Baltimore, it would be 
easy to make him believe that Francis Asbury had 
prejudiced the minds of the preachers. Jealous of 
Asbury's influence over their brethren, Allen and 
OTvelly would stop at no malicious hint or open 
charge that would accomplish their purpose. O'Xel- 
ly was preparing to measure arms with Asbury. Af- 
fecting to defend the interest of the preachers, he 
demanded the right of appeal from the bishop to the 
Conference when a preacher was dissatisfied with an 
appointment. This was in effect to destroy episco- 
pacy and itinerancy at one blow. The occasions for 
combinations, trades, dissatisfaction, and all evil sur- 
mise and all evil enterprise which an appeal to the 
Conference on such a subject must create, it is scarce- 
ly possible to foresee, and impossible to prevent. 

Asbury's position was vital to the constitution of 
the Church, as, at a later period, the attitude of Will- 
iam McKendree was upon a cognate question. Thus, 
to effect his own purposes, and to establish an aris- 
tocracy in Church government, O' Kelly used his ut- 
most powers of persuasion at home and of detrac- 
tion abroad. Allen's letters were calculated to sow 
discord between Coke and Asbury. The man who 
can descend to the position of an informer, even when 
he' has the truth to tell and tells only the t-ruth, feels, 
if he is an honest man, that he has humbled himself 
in his own sight, and placed his good name at the 
mercy of another. The universal feeling of aversion 
for an " informer " is founded in the work of the Di- 



318 



The Higli-cliiirehman Disarmed; 



vine Spirit that lays in the human soul this founda- 
tion for individual character. He who has whereof 
to complain of his brother will, first of all, seek to 
recover his friend by telling him of his fault. But 
the tale-bearer lives upon the weaknesses and sins of 
his fellows; and when these do not suffice to maintain 
his appetite for scandal, he creates the sin that he 
loves to report. 

There was much fuel for such fires as Allen and 
O'Kelly liked to kindle. Preachers are but men, 
and most men can be flattered. A local preacher who 
is not "cultivated" by his pastor; a man whose ap- 
pointments are always in the backwoods, who ought 
to be in a "better place; " the man whom the bishop 
has passed by when he ought to have been selected 
for responsible and important trusts; the man who 
could prove himself great if he had the opportunity 
—these men existed in Asbury's day as they exist in 
greater number to-day. To sow the seeds of disaf- 
fection among these is no great task. If soldiers of 
the Revolution, in these times of which we write, were 
won from George Washington by the arts of the po- 
litical scandal-monger, can it be strange that Asbury 
should for a time lose some of his once faithful friends? 
Can it be surprising that these men who sought the 
ruin of Asbury should begin by enlisting Mr. Wesley 
in their company? 

^ The subject of greatest wonder is that a combina- 
tion so powerful accomplished so little. They slan- 
dered Asbury, and prevailed upon Wesley to rebuke 
him. Abusive, anonymous letters came ever and anon, 
and waited for the weary itinerant at many a way- 
side home. If hypocrisy be " the homage that vice 



A Defense of Our Methodist Father. 



319 



pays to virtue," surely the anonymous letter is the 
phlebotomy which Satan practices to save his serv- 
ants from apoplexy. Relieved of surplus blood, the 
patient breathes easier. But the letter of Mr. Wes- 
ley, written September 20, 17SS, did not reach Bishop 
Asbury until March 15, 1789. He records the receipt 
in a line: "Here I received a bitter pill from one of 
my greatest friends. Praise the Lord for my trials 
also; may they all be sanctified!"* He was holding 
the South Carolina Conference in Charleston, Dr. 
Coke being present. The " bitter pill " was as follows: 

London, September 20, 178S. 
There is indeed a wide difference between the relation wherein 
you stand to the Americans and the relation wherein I stand to all the 
Methodists. You are the elder brother of the American Methodists; 
I am, under God, the father of the whole family. Therefore, I nat- 
urally care for you all in a manner no other person can do. There- 
fore, I in a measure provide for you all. For the supplies which 
Dr. Coke provides for you, he could not provide were it not for me 
— were it not that I not only permit him to collect, but also support 
him in so doing. 

But in one point, my dear brother, I am a little afraid, both the 
Doctor and you differ from me. I study to be little; you study to 
be great. I creep; you strut along. I found a school; you a col- 
lege—nay, and call it after your own names! O beware! do not 
seek to be something. Let me be nothing, and " Christ be all in all." 

One instance of this, of your greatness, has given me great con- 
cern. How can you, how dare you, suffer yourself to be called bish- 
op? I shudder, I start at the very thought! Men may call me a 
knave or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content ; but they 
shall never, by my consent, call me bishop. For my sake, for God's 
sake, for Christ's sake, put a full end to this! Let the Presbyteri- 
ans do what they please, f but let the Methodists know their call- 
ing better. 

* March 15, 1789. jls not this an allusion to the Baptists of Virginia, who 
had made, some ten years before, an experiment in the episcopal form of 
Church government and called their chief pastors bishops?— W. P. H. 



320 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



Thus, my dear Franky, I have told you all that is in mv heart. 
And let this, when I am no more seen, bear witness how sincerely 
I am your affectionate friend and brother, J. Wesley. 

This was indeed a "bitter pill." "I study to be 
little; you study to be great. I creep; you strut- 
along." Could it be possible that John Wesley could 
forget that his enemies had said of him precisely what 
he here affirms of Asbury? And if they were false 
witnesses, might not his informants be also? No man 
who has any respect for truth at this day will say that 
Francis Asbury was a proud man, exalting himself 
above his fellows. It is not from the records of his 
toils and trials as given in his Journal that his por- 
trait should be drawn; but from witnesses of every 
grade of intellect, of every station in society, of every 
denomination of Christians, and of none. From these 
sources we learn how cruelly unjust these words of 
Mr. Wesley were. Nearly two years after he received 
this cruel letter he writes to Dr. Coke, February 12, 
1791, as follows: 

I have served the Church of Christ upward of twenty-five years 
in Europe and America. All the property I have gained is two old 
horses, the constant companions of my toil, six if not seven thou- 
sand miles every year. Where we have no ferry-boats they swim 
the rivers. As to clothing, I am nearly the same as at first. ]Sei- 
tlier have I silver or gold, nor any property. My confidential 
friends know that I lie not in these matters. I am resolved not to 
claim any property in the printing concern. Increase as it may, it 
will be sacred to invalid preachers, the college, and the schools. I 
would not have my name, mentioned as doing, having, or being any 
thing but dust. 

I soar indeed, but it is over the tops of the highest mountains we 
have, which may vie with the Alps. I creep sometimes upon my 
hands and knees up the slippery ascent ; and to serve the Church 
and the ministers of it, what I gain is many a reflection from both 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 321 



sides of the Atlantic. I liave lived long enough to be loved and 
hated, to be admired and feared. If it were not for the suspicions 
of some, and the pride and ignorance of others, I am of opinion I 
could make provision, by collections, profits on books, and donations 
in land, to take two thousand children under the best plan of educa- 
tion ever known in this country. The Lord begins to smile on our 
Kingswood school. One promising young man is gone forth, an- 
other is ready, and several have been under awakenings. None so 
healthy and orderly as our children, and some promise great talents 
for learning. The obstinate and ignorant oppose among preachers 
and people, while the judicious for good sense and piety, in Church 
and State, admire and applaud. I am, with most dutiful respect, as 
ever, your son in the gospel, Francis Asbcry. 

Keferences to Mr. Wesley's letter are apparent, and 
they are not out of place. Coke was a witness in 
part only, for lie knew not what occurred in his ab- 
sence from America. But it shows the power of di- 
vine grace in the human heart when Asbury is cen- 
sured for the fault of Coke and does not explain the 
fact. It was Coke who wished to call the seminary a 
" college." It was Coke's name that came first, and 
that distinguished the title of the place. " I wished 
only for schools," Asbury says, January 4, 1796; "Dr. 
Coke wanted a college." But wherein was the " pride " 
in the matter? William and Mary "College" had 
been eking out an existence whose character may be 
estimated by the fact that it rarely had more than 
twenty pupils in any year from its beginning to the 
war of the Kevolution, a period of seventy-five years 
and more. A "college" is a proper name for a defi- 
nite thing. It is the abuse of the term "university" 
that deserves censure in the American States. But 
the piece de resistance in Wesley's letter, the piece of 
meat whereof High-churchmen love " to cut and come 
again," is the allusion to the word "bishop." "How 
21 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



dare you suffer yourself to be called bishop? I shud- 
der, 1 start at the very thought!" Venerable man! 
why do you shudder at the word that translates your 
own claim, expressed over and over again? You are 
an episcopos, and an episcopos is a bishop. Why, then, 
start at the word? Alas! there are people who are 
tickled to the utmost by the application of titles of 
high-sounding greatness. But there are men too great 
to be dignified by any title. Cicero is not known as 
an emperor, but as an orator. Csesar is the synonym 
for greatness, and any title dilutes the power of the 
name. And thus, by the caricature of the episcopal 
office, the very name of ''bishop" had an ill sound 
in pious ears in Europe. As an officer of the State 
Mr. Wesley gave to his diocesan any obedience that 
was due, but to the name he attached no value what- 
ever. 

Now and then in some American State where pros- 
perity is just about to dawn, one may see a gowned 
and surpliced gentleman engaged in scattering pam- 
phlets that ring the changes upon this letter of Mr. 
Wesley to Francis Asbury. He, the "successor of 
apostles," now that civilization has produced a little 
comfort, is prepared to show that the race of the 
apostles did not die with the exile on Patmos. For 
any six clergymen of veritable parishes can have an 
apostle created at the general convening-place of the 
representatives of "the Church." It is not essential 
that any one should be a converted man, from the ves- 
try mam whose zeal is as marvelous as his life is any 
thing else but religious, to the "apostle " himself, who 
claims to have tne same power in the Church that 
Christ exercised when on earth. To these agents of 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 323 

"the Church" this letter of Mr. Wesley has been, 
and still is, an inexhaustible source of wealth. They 
print it all; they print it piecemeal; they quote it, 
and confront some unlettered Methodist with the pal- 
pable demonstration that Wesley never dreamed of 
making Coke and Asbury bishops! It is true that 
they know better, but the ignorant Methodist does 
not, and perchance one here and there is captured. 



Ghsptiep m II. 

Complaints Against Dr. Coke — Cambrian Blood — An Impulsive Man 
— Missionary Evangelist and Author — Samuel Drew — Notorious 
Failure in America— Pragmatism — An Epigram — Bad Advice- 
James O'Kelly — Mischief in the Air — The Council Fails — Gen- 
eral Conference Called— O'Kelly Consents to Abide its Action — 
Coke Discouraged — Dissensions, Divisions, and Discords — Coke 
becomes Frightened— Writes to Dr. White proposing to Unite the 
Methodists and Episcopalians — News of Wesley's Death — Dr. 
White's Answer — Serious Questions — Cases of Conscience — Bishop 
Madison proposes to Unite the Episcopalians and the Methodists 
— In Open Convention the Prorjosal is Made, and Withdrawn, for 
Reasons — A Bit of History not Found in Episcopal Tracts. 

THE character of Thomas Coke has furnished the 
enemies of Methodism with not a few arrows of 
assault, and, as usual, the defense requires more time 
and space than the charges occupy. It is, indeed, by 
no means easy to explain all of the sayings and doings 
of this celebrated man. He had Mr. Wesley's disre- 
gard for consistency, and for the same reason. A man 
that is not wiser to-day than he was yesterday is not 
the man to give counsel on any subject. The man 
who sees to-day the error of yesterday, and adheres to 
it because he is too proud to own himself in the wrong, 
is not the man to found or to edify Churches or insti- 
tutions of any kind. But Dr. Coke had what Wesley 
had not, an impulsive nature that was seldom held in 
check by superior reason. Wesley was by nature a, 
man of passionate temper, and of vindictive spirit, but 
grace reversed these native qualities, and patience and 
meekness adorned his character. 

(324) 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 325 



Dr. Coke had much o£ the Cambrian disposition, 
which acts first and reasons afterward. His impulses 
were always good, but the measures he employed were 
sometimes questionable. He was born to affluence, 
and gave all he had to the cause of God. He was em- 
inently industrious, and, although his way of life nec- 
essarily incurred great expenses, he was seldom or 
never without some money to give to worthy objects. 
He has been called ambitious, but his ambition was to 
do good. He required time to consider whether he 
could undertake the mission to America; but, once 
convinced of its propriety, he threw himself upon the 
current of Providence, and it drifted him to a last, 
long home in the deep, deep sea; and his name, of all 
that he had, has been left to the Church and people 
that he loved. One may censure who does not under- 
stand him. The study of his life repays the student, 
and brings into favorable position those lines of moral 
feature that seem at first most in shadow. 

Coke was an evangelist, a missionary,, but he was not 
qualified for the work of building upon the foundation 
he had planted. He could see the fields ripening for 
the harvest, and he spared no effort, no sacrifice in order 
to send reapers into the field. He was as prompt to 
act as Peter among the twelve, and for the same reason. 
His perceptions— often true, and sometimes otherwise 
—were always followed by action. A calm, philosophic 
mind, reposing upon its own strength, and capable of 
meeting any emergency. Dr. Coke had not. Later in 
life he met such a one in Samuel Drew, and to him 
much of Coke's literary reputation is due. Drew was 
a metaphysician who solved some of the deepest mys- 
teries of thought while plying the shoe-maker's needle 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



and awl. His claims to eminence of soul, as well as 
of mind, are seen in the fact that, when he was the 
guest of a wondering circle of gifted men, he was 
never ashamed of his humble origin. But Thomas 
Coke had as little thought of appropriating other 
men's ideas as he had of building upon other men's 
foundations. Drew was his editor, " to select, arrange, 
and perfect"* the materials for his books; but Coke 
was willing to print, and was prevented only by cir- 
cumstances from printing the name of the shoe-maker 
side by side with his own. 

To do good unto all men, especially those who were 
cared for by no one else, was the maxim upon which 
the life of Dr. Coke was ordered. He was the founder 
of the foreign mission system among the Wesleyans, 
and his pulpit efforts, his private appeals 5 and his per- 
sonal example and melancholy fate, aroused attention 
to the great work of the Christian Church— the evan- 
gelization of the world. To remove from a name so 
illustrious the stain which prejudice, sectarian zeal, 
and personal chagrin have united to fasten upon it, is 
in the truest and best sense a labor of love. 

It is necessary to repeat, in order to refute, one of 
the latest efforts of High-churchmen to defame a man 
whose life and work they cannot understand. The 
words of the London reviewer will present one of the 
charges preferred against Dr. Coke: 

"At this crisis the all-sufficient John Wesley inter- 
vened as a deus ex machind to settle the question in the 
plenitude of his self -created apostolate. Nothing 
daunted by his own notorious failure in America, he 
took upon himself, in his bed-chamber at Bristol, on 
*Life of Samuel Drew, p. 129. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 327 

September 2, 1784, to consecrate one Thomas Coke to 
the office of 'superintendent; which in America was 
promptly translated into bishop. Coke having per- 
formed the same ceremony upon Aston, the 'Methodist 
Episcopal Church' was added to the other sects bub- 
bling in the colonial caldron, and in spite of Charles 
Wesley's epigram it quickly lost sight of its origin: 
'How easily are bishops made, 

By man or woman's whim ; 
Wesley his hands on Coke hath laid, 

But who laid hands on him?' 

« The shaft penetrated. Dr. Bearclsley tells us that 
after Wesley's death, in 1791, Coke, who was a gradu- 
ate of Oxford, applied to Bishops Seabury and White 
to impart the apostolical succession to himself and As- 
ton, and not obtaining his request, returned to England 
and publicly recanted his schism. (Pp. 310, 311.)" 7r 

The reader has seen some of the issues presented 
in this extract in the foregoing pages of this volume. 
The "notorious failure in America" is an evident eb- 
ullition of the feeling sometimes called "spleen." 
John Wesley was a High- churchman when he came 
to and when he left America. His " failure," if such 
it be, was due to that cause. The bed-chamber ordi- 
nation of Coke is matched by the bed-chamber ordi- 
nation of Seabury a few weeks afterward. The epi- 
gram of Charles Wesley is really a good specimen of 
wit, while the following is a sad Illustration of the 
spirit which actuated the writer in the Review: 

Angels, saints, and men are glad 

At a prodigal's return; 
Envious Pharisees are sad, 

With the powers of darkness mourn. 

* Church Review, January, 1885. 



328 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



Scribes, in every age the same, 

Thus their true succession prove, 
By their murmurings proclaim, 

" God we neither fear nor love.'' 

These lines of Charles Wesley have been quoted in 
another place, but they are inserted here in order to 
balance the poetical account. But what shall be said 
of the statement that Dr. Coke "recanted his schism," 
after failing in his application for the "apostolical 
succession?" 

Let us return to the thread of history which we had 
followed to the year 1789. Bishop Asbury was blamed 
by Mr. Wesley because he did not use his influence 
to prevent the act of repealing the "obedience" min- 
ute. 

" Mr. Wesley blamed me, and was displeased that 
I did not rather reject the whole Connection, or leave 
them, if they did not comply. But I could not 
give up the Connection so easily, after laboring and 
suffering so many years with and for them." * It must 
have been a strange tale of " the history and mystery 
of Methodist Episcopacy" that could have provoked 
from John Wesley such advice as that. Only the be- 
lief that the American preachers had determined to 
show themselves unworthy of any sacred trust could 
have induced a proposal inconsistent with every moral 
obligation on the part of Bishop Asbury. It was not 
in this spirit that Mr. Wesley received the first intel- 
ligence from the "General Conference" of 1787. His 
Journal has the following entries: 

"Tues., 26 [June, 1787]. — We were agreeably sur- 
prised with the arrival of Dr. Coke, who came from 



-Journal, Nov. 29, 1796. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 329 



Philadelphia in nine and twenty days, and gave 
us a pleasing account of the work of God in Amer- 
ica. 

"Sat, 30. — I desired all our preachers to meet me, and 
consider the state of our brethren in America, who 
have been terribly frightened at their own shadow, as 
if the English preachers were just going to enslave 
them. I believe that fear is now over, and they are 
more aware of Satan's devices." 

It would have been far better if the venerable man 
had been himself fully aware of Satan's devices. At 
the writing of the foregoing entries he was in Ireland, 
and it was the Irish preachers with whom he held a 
consultation. Nothing came of it, and no more would 
have been heard of it, doubtless, but for the evil en- 
ergy of Allen and O'Kelly. These troublers of Israel 
were loading the mails with calumny and abuse of As- 
bury. 

Not content with the effect produced in the "bitter 
pill" administered by Wesley to Asbury, O'Kelly 
writes to the way-worn Bishop in terms of threat- 
ening that appear marvelous to us. "I received a 
letter," says Asbury, "from the presiding elder of 
this district, James O'Kelly, He makes heavy com- 
plaints of my power, and bids me stop for one year, or 
he must use his influence against me. Power! power! 
There is not a vote given in a Conference in which the 
presiding elder has not greatly the advantage of me. 
All the influence I am to gain over a company of young 
men in a district must be done in three weeks. The 
greater part of them, perhaps, are seen by me only at 
Conference, while the presiding elder has had them 
with him all the year, and has the greatest opportu- 



330 The Higk-churchtnan Disarmed: 



nity of gaining influence. This advantage may be 
abused. Let the bishops look to it. But who has 
the power to lay an embargo on me, and to make of 
none effect the decision of all the Conferences of the 
Union?"* 

The self-sufficient pride which dictated O'Kelly's 
letter to Asbury was hastening to its fall. A curious 
experiment in legislation was on trial. To obviate the 
meeting of the whole body of ministers a council was 
organized to consist of members from all the Confer- 
ences. Of all the inventions of men for the good of 
society, this was, perhaps, the most inefficient, ill- 
planned, and ill-starred experiment. It was stoutly 
opposed in Virginia; " The young men appeared to 
be entirely under the influence of the elders, and 
turned it out-of-doors." f It was thought that the in- 
fluence of Asbury would overpower all others, and 
that the "council" would be the organ of one man. 
" To conciliate the minds of our brethren in the south 
district of Virginia," he writes, "I wrote their leader 
a letter informing him that I would take my seat in 
council as another member, and, in that point at least, 
waive the claims of episcopacy. Yea, I would lie 
down and be trodden upon rather than knowingly in- 
jure one soul." J 

We are approaching a crisis in this controversy. 
Bishop Asbury has reached Charleston, and on Feb- 
ruary 23, 1791, we find this record: " Long-looked-f or 
Dr. Coke came to town. He had been shipwrecked 
off Edisto. I found the Doctor's sentiments with 
regard to the council quite changed. James O'Kel- 
ly's letters had reached London. I felt perfectly calm, 
-Journal, Jan. 12, 1790. t Ibid., June 14, 1790. % Ibid., Aug. 20, 1790. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 331 



and acceded to a general conference for the sake of 
peace." * 

It is difficult to believe that Asbury could heartily 
embrace such a system as the "council" for the gov- 
ernment of the Church. But the number of the 
preachers, in spite of the losses by death, and espe- 
cially by "location," was rapidly increasing. Seven 
years after the organization they numbered two hun- 
dred and fifty, an increase of threefold. The preach- 
ers could not meet together, all of them, in the same 
place. Some authoritative assembly, selected in some 
way calculated to give satisfaction, must be devised. 
What that plan was it required the next century to 
unfold. For the present the evils are manifest. If 
the General Conference meets every year it will cost 
some of the preachers the whole of their salaries and 
nearly half of their time to attend it. If those from 
the borders cannot attend, the central stations will, to 
all intents and purposes, govern the Church. A fed- 
eral system was needed, and it is strange that the 
political government did not suggest a plan earlier 
than the year 1800. It is stranger still that eight 
years more elapsed before a delegated General Con- 
ference prevailed. The first session was held in 1812. 

But Dr. Coke had been prejudiced against Bishop 
Asbury. We shall see the proofs of this fact pres- 
ently. He had brought with him to America a new 
source of trouble to the Church. A Mr. Hammet, a 
man more showy than solid, more brilliant than de- 
vout, intended for Nova Scotia, had been driven by 
ill health from the West Indies, and was now in 
Charl eston. To him many of the Charleston people 
-Journal, February 23, 1791. 



332 



The High-cliurclimcui Disarmed: 



rallied on the instant, and they would have him for 
their preacher or none. He became a cause of strife, 
division, and of shipwreck to some valuable souls. 

The aspect of things was threatening. O'Kelly was 
making a grand rally in Virginia. Men like the sweet- 
spirited McKendree were captured by the eloquent, 
warm-hearted, but erratic presiding elder. Perhaps 
not consciously selfish in the beginning, he had meas- 
ured arms with Asbury, and intended to conquer or 
divide the Church. Dr. Coke had neither taste nor 
skill in controversy. He had listened to the charges 
against Asbury until his mind was in a state of alarm 
that incapacitated him for cool, impartial judgment, as 
well as for judicious, prudent action. On the 5th of 
March Asbury wrote nearly twenty pages to Coke on 
the concerns of the Church. Through South Caroli- 
na to Georgia, and from Georgia through North Car- 
olina, the two bishops journeyed, sometimes together 
and sometimes separated. 

Dr. Coke did not know how to conduct a controver- 
sy, but he knew how to submit to the censure of his 
brethren. During his third visit to the United States 
George Washington had been inaugurated President, 
and Dr. Coke and Francis Asbury, as bishops of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, had presented an ad- 
dress, in which there were strong expressions of con- 
fidence and esteem. Dr Coke, as a British subject, 
could not join in an address of this kind without sub- 
jecting himself to the criticism of the English Con- 
ference. They gave him a severe but rightly tem- 
pered reproof, and he received it in silence and with 
respectful deference, But the incident was produc- 
tive of some evil as well as good. A mind like that of 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 333 



Dr. Coke, finding its best intended actions interpreted 
for evil, is inclined to doubt its own strength, and un- 
der impulse forsakes its conclusions for those less en- 
titled to confidence. 

In America, listening from day to day to the charges 
and insinuations and evil prophecies of many parties, 
his heart became the victim of the unpropitioas cir- 
cumstances. His courage failed. He had tested the 
powers of O'Kelly four years before, and knew that 
he was a man to be feared. On the 5th of April, 1791, 
Asbury wrote: "I believe trouble is at hand; but I 
trust God with his cause, and Christ with his Church."' 
Fearful cases of backsliding, even to the pit of dark- 
ness itself, aroused the pity and stirred the souls of 
the brave and the strong, and caused the spirits of the 
weak and the fearful to fall almost to despair. At the 
Virginia Conference, in Petersburg, the two bishops 
rested at different houses. A gloomy, secretive spirit 
became manifest in Dr. Coke. A Conference had been 
appointed for Hanover for the 26th of April, 1791. On 
the 24th Asbury was at Mr. B. Clayton's, but Dr. Coke 
was in Richmond, and there he wrote his famous let- 
ter to Dr. White, of Philadelphia. The minds of the 
two bishops were greatly disturbed. Dr. Coke, as we 
shall see in his letter to Dr. White, had almost ' : de- 
spaired of the republic."' 

Bishop Asbury, April 25, wrote: "I found the Doc- 
tor had much changed his sentiments since his last 
visit to this continent, and that these impressions still 
continued. I hope to be enabled to give up all I dare 
for peace sake, and to please all men for their good to 
edification. " The spirit of a true Christian breathes 
in these words. He who doubted Asbury committed 



334 



The Ifigh-churchman Disarmed: 



a great wrong to his own soul, as well as to the Church. 
He had opinions, and he maintained them, for he had 
a right to them. But he had no prejudices. He would 
yield any thing that did not involve serious principle 
for the sake of peace. The matter of the council was 
now, by all parties, referred to the General Confer- 
ence appointed for the next year. What was there to 
divide Coke and Asbury? Nothing but the malevo- 
lence of wicked, ambitious men, and of that there was 
an abundance. On Sunday Dr. Coke preached in the 
capitol at Kichmond to "the most dressy congrega- 
tion" he ever saw in America. "Nevertheless they 
gave great attention while for an hour he argued 
against the prevailing infidel principles of the age, 
reasoning with Deists, Socinians, and Arians."* 

Was there any law of association that caused this 
" dressy congregation " to bring the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church to his mind? Did he look upon the cit- 
ies as the great centers of thought and influence, and 
from these radiating throughout their respective cir- 
cles the determining principles of society must come? 
"Ulcers on the body politic" Jefferson called these 
large collections of human beings, and he was not far 
in error in regard to some of them. But here, in the 
city of Eichmond, after the morning sermon to the 
"dressy congregation," Dr. Coke sat down and wrote 
hastily to Dr. White, of Philadelphia, as follows: 

Right Reverend Sir: Permit me to intrude a little on your time 
upon a subject of great importance. 

You, I believe, are conscious that I was brought up in the Church 
of England, and have been ordained a presbyter of that Church, 
For many years I was prejudiced, even, I think, to bigotry, in favor 



Etheridge's Life of Coke, p. 274. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 335 



of it; but through a variety of causes or incidents, to mention which 
would be tedious and useless, my mind was exceedingly biased on 
the other side of the question. In consequence of this I am not sure 
but I went farther in the separation of our Church in America than Mr. 
Wesley, from whom I had received my commission, did intend. He 
did indeed solemnly invest me, as far as he had a right so to do, with 
episcopal authority, but did not intend, I think, that an entire sepa- 
ration should take place. He, being pressed by our friends on this 
side of the water for ministers to administer the sacraments to them 
(there being very few of the clergy of the Church of England then 
in the States), went farther, I am sure, than he would have gone if 
he had foreseen some events which followed; and this I am certain 
of — that he is now sorry for the separation. 

But what can be done for a reunion which I much wish for, and 
to accomplish which Mr. Wesley, I have no doubt, would use his in- 
fluence to the utmost? The affection of a very considerable number 
of the preachers and most of the people is very strong toward him, 
notwithstanding the excessive ill-usage he received from a few. My 
interest also is not small. Both his and mine would readily, and to 
the utmost, be used to accomplish that (to us) very desirable object, 
if a readiness were shown by the bishops of the Protestant Episco- 
pal Church to reunite. 

It is even to your Church an object of great importance. We have 
now above sixty thousand adults in our Society in these States, and 
about two hundred and fifty traveling ministers and preachers, be- 
sides a great number of local preachers, very far exceeding the num- 
ber of traveling preachers, and some of those local preachers are 
men of very considerable abilities. But if we number the Method- 
ists as most people number the members of their Church — viz., by 
the families which constantly attend the divine ordinances m their 
places of worship — they Avill make a larger body than you probably 
conceive. The Societ^v, I believe, may be safely multiplied by five, 
on an average, to give us our stated congregations, which will then 
amount to three hundred thousand; and if the calculation which, I 
think, some eminent writers have made be just, that three-fifths of 
mankind are un-adult (if I may use the expression) at any given pe- 
riod, it will follow that all the families, the adults of which form our 
congregations in these States, amount to seven hundred and fifty 
thousand. About one-fifth of these are blacks. The work now ex- 
tends in length from Boston to the south of Georgia, and in breadth 



336 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



from the Atlantic to Lake Champlain, Vermont, Albany, Bedstone, 
Holstein, Kentucky, Cumberland, etc. 

But there are many hinderances in the way. Can they be re- 
moved? 

1. Our ordained ministers will not, ought not to give up their 
right of administering the sacraments. I do not think that the gen- 
erality of them, perhaps none of them, would refuse to submit to a 
reordination if other hinderances were removed out of the way. I 
must here observe that between sixty and seventy only out of the 
two hundred and fifty have been ordained presbyters, and about 
sixty deacons (only). The presbyters are the choicest of the 
whole. 

2. The other preachers would hardly submit to a reunion if the 
possibility of their rising up to ordination depended on the present 
bishops in America, because, though they are all, I think I may say, 
zealous, pious, and useful men, yet they are not acquainted with the 
learned languages. Besides, they would argue, if the present bish- 
ops would waive the article of the learned languages, yet their suc- 
cessors might not. 

My desire of a reunion is so sincere and earnest that these difficul- 
ties almost make me tremble, and yet something must be done be- 
fore the death of Mr. Wesley, otherwise I shall despair of success; 
for though my influence among the Methodists in these States, as 
well as in Europe, is, I doubt not, increasing, yet Mr. Asbury, whose 
influence is very capital, will not easily comply; nay, I know he will 
be exceedingly averse to it. 

In Europe, where some steps have been taken tending to a sep- 
aration, all is at an end. Mr. Wesley is a determined enemy 
of it, and I have lately borne an open and successful testimony 
against it. 

Shall I be favored with a private interview with you in Philadel- 
phia? 1 shall be there, God willing, on Tuesday, the 17th of May. 
If this be agreeable I will beg of you just to signify it in a note di- 
rected to me at Mr. Jacob Baker's, merchant, Market street, Phila- 
delphia; or, if you please, by a few lines sent me by the return of 
Ine post at Philip Roger's, Esq., in Baltimore, from yourself or Dr. 
Magaw, and I will wait upon you with my friend Dr. Magaw. We 
can then enlarge on these subjects. 

1 am conscious of it that secrecy is of great importance in the 
present state of the business, till the minds of you, your brother 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



337 



bishops, and Mr. Wesley be circumstantially known. I must there- 
fore beg that these things be confined to yourself and Dr. Magaw 
till I have the honor of seeing you. 

Thus, you see, I have made a bold venture on your honor and 
candor, and have opened my whole heart to you on the subject, as 
far as the extent of a small letter will allow me. If you put equal 
confidence in me, you will find me candid and faithful. 

I have, notwithstanding, been guilty of inadvertences. Very 
lately I found myself obliged (for the pacifying of my conscience) to 
Avrite a penitential letter to the Rev. Mr. Jarratt, which gave him 
great satisfaction, and for the same reason I must write another to 
the Rev. Mr. Pettigrew. When I was last in America I prepared 
and corrected a great variety of things for our magazines; indeed, 
almost every thing that was printed, except some loose hints which 
I had taken of one of my journeys, and which I left in my hurry 
with Mr. Asbury without any correction, entreating that no part of 
them might be printed which would be improper or offensive. But 
through great inadvertency (I suppose) he suffered some reflections 
on the character of the two above-mentioned gentlemen to be in- 
serted in the magazine, for which I am very sorry, and probably 
shall not rest till I have made my acknowledgment more public, 
though Mr. Jarratt does not desire it. 

I am not sure whether I have not also offended you, sir, by ac- 
cepting one of the offers made me by you and Dr. Magaw of the use 
of your churches about six years ago on my first visit to Philadelphia 
without informing you of our plan of separation from the Church 
of England. If I did offend (as I doubt not I did, especially from 
what you said on the subject to Mr. Richard Dellam, of Abingdon), 
I sincerely beg yours and Dr. Magaw's pardon. I will endeavor to 
amend. But alas ! I am a frail, weak creature. 

I will intrude no longer at piesent. One thing only I will claim 
from your candor — that if you have no thoughts of improving this 
proposal you will burn this letter and take no more notice of it (for it 
would be a pity to have us entirely alienated from each other, if we 
cannot unite in the manner my ardent wishes desire). But if you 
will further negotiate the business I will explain my mind still more 
fully to you on the probabilities of success. 

In the meantime permit me, with great respect, to subscribe my- 
self, right reverend sir, your very humble servant in Christ, 

Thomas Coke. 

22 



338 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



You must excuse interlineations, etc., as I am just going into the 
country, and have no time to transcribe. 
Richmond, April 24, 1791. 

The Right Reverend Father in God, Bishop White. 

Dr. Coke was going into the country to attend the 
Conference and to meet Bishop Asbury, and the next 
day — Monday, April 25 — the entry was made in the 
Journal, which expressed the belief of a decided 
change in Dr. Coke, and a willingness upon the part 
of Asbury to make any concession for the sake of 
peace. They closed the Conference hastily, and on 
Thursday, April 28, Dr. Coke preached at Port Royal. 
The next day, April 29, news was received of the death 
of John Wesley. He died on the 2d of March, and 
the news had been no less than Jiff y-eighf days in reach- 
ing them ! 

This intelligence filled the soul and mind of Dr. 
Coke. If he had entertained fears for the perpetuity 
of the Church heforetime, he was now, as he supposed, 
called to look another important fact in the face. He 
had no doubt of his election to the presidency of the 
British Conference, perhaps to be a permanent pres- 
ident with something analogous to episcopal power. 
He had, as he supposed, reason to believe that Mr. 
Wesley would have made some such arrangement, if 
required to do so by the exigences of the case. If 
this should happen, what must be the fate of America? 
Divided, wrangling, split into parties fiercely devour- 
ing each other, he saw in his imagination the young 
American Church dissolving like a dream, and fulfill- 
ing the gloomy prophecy of Charles Wesley: "They 
will lose all their influence and importance, they will 
turn aside to vain janglings, they will settle again up- 



A Defense of Qui 1 Methodist Fathers. 339 



on their lees, and, like other sects of dissenters, come 
to nothing!"* 

Can we find it in our hearts to censure Dr. Coke 
very severely, when we know that such a man as 
Thomas Jefferson was seized by a political panic some- 
what analogous in its origin? When it was proposed 
to establish the Society of the Cincinnati as a perma- 
nent institution, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to 
Gen. Washington, which is, to say the least of it, a 
strange production for a man who had the strongest 
confidence in the self-governing capacity of a free peo- 
ple. " The moderation and virtue of a single charac- 
ter," said Jefferson, in 1784, "have probably prevented 
this Ke volution from being closed, as most others have 
been, by a subversion of that liberty it was intended 
to establish. He is not immortal, and his successor, 
or some of his successors, may be led by false calcu- 
lation into a less certain road to glory." f 

If Thomas Jefferson, the author of the immortal 
Declaration of Independence, could see certain dan- 
ger in the existence of a society that was composed of 
the men who purchased American liberty by their her- 
oism, why should we blame Dr. Coke for entertaining 
the gloomy forebodings which prompted him to write 
the letter to Dr. White? And now that the founder 
of Methodism is no more, he remembers the words of 
Charles Wesley, and the suggestion leads him to ad- 
dress another letter to Dr. Seabury, who had been ex- 
ceedingly willing to give the "apostolical succession" 
to any properly recommended Methodist brother who 
might apply. 

* Life of Charles Wesley, p. 423. f Jefferson's Correspondence, 
vol. i.. r>. 225. 



3-40 The lilgli-cl turcli man Disarmed : 

Let us deal tenderly with Dr. Coke. But. before 
we examine the letter to Dr. Seabury, it will be proper 
to introduce Dr. White's reply to the communication 
addressed to him. The " Fac-similes of Church Doc- 
uments" contain Dr. Coke's letters to White and Sea- 
bury, but. upon the principle, perhaps, that White's 
reply is of "no consequence,'' it is not copied. The 
Philadelphia divine has preserved his answer to Dr. 
Coke, but it bears no date: 

Reverend Sir: My friend, Dr. Magaw, lias this day put into my 
hands your letter of the 24th of April, which, I trust, I received 
with a sense of the importance of the subject, and of the answer I 
am to give to God for the improvement of my opportunity of build- 
ing up his Church. Accordingly I cannot but make choice of the 
earliest of the two ways you point out to inform you that I shall be 
very happy in the opportunity of conversing with you at the time 
proposed. 

You mention two difficulties in the way of the proposed union, and 
there are further difficulties which suggest themselves to my mind : 
but I can say of the one and of the other that I do not think them 
insuperable, provided there be a conciliatory disposition on both 
sides. So far as I am concerned, I think that such a disposition exists. 

It has been my temper, sir, not to despond in regard to the extension 
of Christianity in this new world; and in addition to the promises 
of the Great Head of the Church, I have always imagined that I 
perceived the train of second causes so laid by the good providence 
of God, as to be promoting what we believe to be his will in this re- 
spect. On the other hand, I feel the weight of most powerful dis- 
couragement in the increasing number of the avowed patrons of in- 
fidelity, and of others who pretend to confess the divine authority 
of our holy religion, while they endeavor to strip it of its character- 
istic doctrines. In this situation it is rather to be expected that dis- 
tinct Churches, agreeing in fundamentals, should make mutual sac- 
rifices for a union than that any Church should divide into two bod- 
ies without a difference being even alleged to exist in any leading 
point. For the preventing of this, the measures which you may pro- 
pose cannot fail of success, unless there be on one side, or on both, a 
most lamentable deficiency of Christian temper. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 341 



I remember the conversation you allude to with Mr. Dellam. I 
hope I did not express myself uncharitably or even indelicately. As 
to personal offense toward me, it is out of the question, for I had not 
at that time any connection with St. Paul's Church. But this, as 
well as the other parts of your letter, may be discoursed of at the 
proposed interview. Therefore, with assurance of the desired se- 
crecy, and with requesting you to accept a like promise of candor to 
that which I credit from you, I conclude myself at present your 
brother in Christ and very humble servant, W. W. 

Let it be noted how readily Dr. White entered into 
Dr. Coke's plan. That the Episcopal bishop was fa- 
vorable to the proposed union on Dr. Coke's terms is 
the only escape for Dr. White. If he was not in favor 
of this union, he acted in the most unpardonable man- 
ner in not burning Dr. Coke's confidential letter. The 
appeal is to a man of honor: "One thing only I will 
claim from your candor -—that if you hare no thoughts 
of improving this proposal, you will burn this letter, and 
take no more notice of it" In his Memoirs Dr. White 
says: "Dr. Coke's letter was answered by the author 
with the reserve which seemed incumbent on one who 
was incompetent to decide with effect on the proposal 
made."* With this statement compare these words 
from Dr. White's reply: "In this situation it is rather 
to be expected that distinct Churches, agreeing in fun- 
damentals, should make mutual sacrifices for a union 
than that any Church should divide into two bodies 
without a difference being even alleged to exist in any 
leading point. For the preventing of this, the meas- 
ures which you may propose cannot fail of success, unless 
there be on one side, or on both, a most lamentable deficien- 
cy of Christian temper." 

Are these words of " reserve ? " Two Ch urclies ought 

* Memoirs, p. 197. 



342 The High-churchman Disarmed: 

to make sacrifices for union, even if they had been 
formerly distinct. But "two bodies," formed out of 
one Church, having no difference of doctrine to divide 
them, ought the more readily to unite. Let us note 
the fact that if the Episcopal sect was a Church, so was 
the Methodist. If the Methodist denomination was 
only a " body," so also was the Episcopalian. And Dr. 
White is so confident that Coke's measures are feasi- 
ble, practicable, desirable, that nothing can defeat them 
but "a lamentable deficiency of Christian temper!" 
But, when he came to record the transaction after- 
ward, the terms are, " a union of the- Met hodistica I Soci- 
ety with the Episcopal Church!"* 

The fox and the sour grapes— how often do they 
play their instructive parts in this world of sin and 
folly! 

"It was evident from some expressions which passed 
in conversation with Dr. Coke," says Dr. White, "that 
there was a degree of jealousy, if not of misunderstand- 
ing, between him and Mr. Asbury. Whether this had 
any influence in the enterprise of the former, or he 
perceived advantage likely to arise to him under the 
state of things which would take place in England on 
the decease of Mr. Wesley, are questions on which 
there is no judgment here formed." f 

The fair-minded reader will add to this last sentence 
that these are questions which would not arise in the 
mind of a Christian gentleman to whom a friend had 
unbosomed himself. Alas for Dr. Coke! Fondly 
dreaming that he was placing his most secret thoughts 
in the possession of a man of honor, he reveals 
them to one who does not scorn to hold his words, his 

* Memoirs, p. 107. f Ibid., p. 199. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 343 



actions, and his very tones of voice in vivid memory, 
that in after days he may use these betrayals of 
friendship to stab the cause for which Coke lived, la- 
bored, and died! 

"The determination was adopted not to hinder any 
good which might possibly accrue hereafter, although 
it was perceived that this could not be on the terms 
proposed."* 

Let us weigh every word of the foregoing sentence, 
and interpret it in the light of events following. _ The 
author of the "Memoirs" determined w not to hinder 
any good that might possibly accrue hereafter." That 
means to preserve Coke's letter for such use as fortune 
may present. It was perceived, however, that no 
" good" could be accomplished on the terms proposed; 
therefore he wrote to Dr. Coke that this good— a union 
of the two Churches— not only could be accomplished 
on " the terms proposed," but if this were not done the 
fault would be owing to a "lamentable want of Chris- 
tian temper!" Finally, on this ground that he was 
favorable to Coke's proposition, he preserved the letter, 
instead of burning it, as Coke had appealed to him to 
do 11 he did not favor his proposition. The reader 
will judge of the morality of this transaction, and 
mve to each actor in it the censure that belongs to 
him. 

How differently are questions of honor construed 
by men! It is not necessary to say that a Christian 
man would not condescend to make a public use of 
the materials which confiding friendship has placed in 
his hands under the seal of secrecy. Dr. Coke's views 
upon that subject were made manifest by an incident 
* Memoirs, p. 199. 



344 The High-churchman Disarmed, 

which occurred some years after his letters to Drs. 
White and Seabury, Immediately after Mr. Wesley's 
death a pamphlet professing to review his life and 
character appeared in London. It was written with a 
great deal of skill, and in a literary point of view ex- 
celled the average publications of the day. In this 
production Mr. Wesley's good name was smirched in 
many ways, but especially by two love-letters said to be 
addressed by him to a young lady when he was more 
than eighty years of age. "The letters were written 
in a peculiar strain of canting gallantry," says Mr. 
Drew.* The writer who gave them to the press ad- 
vertised that he had the original letters, and the pub- 
lic could see them by calling at a certain place. Many 
persons did so, but no one could see the letters. Ex- 
cuses o£ one kind or another intervened, and thus the 
matter passed out of the public mind, until ten years 
after the publication, when Dr. Coke received a note 
from a Mr. Collet, confessing that the letters were for- 
geries of his own, and the whole pamphlet a collection 
of falsehoods. The forger not only confessed his 
crime, but authorized Dr. Coke to make, his confession 
public. Here was a case in which the liberty to use a 
private communication was expressly given, and yet 
Dr. Coke did not publish the criminal's confession 
until he had the written authority of Collet to do so. 
Justice required the publication, but Mr. Collet had 
placed his reputation in Dr. Coke's hands, and he 
would not use his own statement to his damage with- 
out the specific authority of the writer. 

As for Dr. Coke, Ave need not repel the insinuation 
of a jealous feeling for Bishop Asbury. It was as far 
* Life of Coke, p. 309. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 345 



from him as an ungenerous action was from the soul 
of either. There was no room for rivalry between 
these men. One was domiciled in America, the other 
in Europe. One was fast gathering into his hands 
the cords of a vast system, a network of missionary 
operations destined to touch and thread every country 
on the globe. The other was busy with the toils and 
labors, the triumphs and trials of a vast field of do- 
mestic operations, and sending to the outposts of civ- 
ilization the messengers of the cross. By the time 
the winding-horn of the pioneer hunter had broken 
the silence of the forest, the voice of song, pealing 
forth the glorious hymns of Charles Wesley, answered 
the echo. The ax of the woodman had scarcely cut 
the timbers for his cabin before the heralds of the 
cross brought to his door the gospel of life and liberty 
from sin. The objects were the same, but the lines 
of action were as far apart from each other as the 
shores of the Atlantic Ocean. 

That Dr. Coke had fears of the consequences of 
Mr. Wesley's death, both in Europe and America, is 
beyond question. The disturbed condition of the 
American Church, occasioned by O 'Kelly and his co- 
adjutors, led him to seek from any proper source the 
means of reenforcing the Church and widening the 
field of its operations. If this was not a proper mo- 
tive, what shall be said of Bishop Madison's proposi- 
tion to unite the Episcopalians and the Methodists? 
Our High-church advocates are not accustomed to re- 
fer to the fact that Bishop Madison proposed to do 
what Dr. White declared subsequently could not be 
done — that is, to make a compromise of Episcopal 
prejudices in things not essential, that the Methodists 



346 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



might unite with them in forming a Church of greater 
strength than either possessed separately. 

Dr. James Madison became the bishop of the dio- 
cese of Virginia in 1791. The convention of that 
year had twenty-eight ministers present, a larger num- 
ber than the records show at any convention in the 
next twenty years. A long and able address was de- 
livered by the Bishop. It is full of lamentations over 
the state of the Church in the diocese. He deplores 
the want of Christian zeal, the indifference of the 
laity, the unfaithfulness of the clergy; and in an ad- 
dress two years later he uttered the most withering 
reproach that could be framed in moderate language. 
" Many educated in the bosom of our Church desert 
it," says Bishop Madison, " not solely from a convic- 
tion of error in doctrine, but because the great bulk 
of its members seem indifferent to religious exer- 
cises." * 

A Church " indifferent to religious exercises! " What 
a singular picture is given of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church by its own friends! Dr. White says that if it 
had been required to accept none but communicants in 
the conventions which organized the Church, it could 
not have been organized at all. f One of the most ex- 
traordinary statements ever made by a minister of the 
gospel is made by Dr. White when he said that "the 
Church" had no method of receiving members int~> 
her communion! In New Jersey "considerable diffi- 
culty was alleged to have arisen," he says, "as to what 
may be called a joint act in the case of a person bap- 
tized in some other communion, but joining his or her- 
self to this Church. In the case supposed the joint 
^Journals of Conventions, p. 57. f Memoirs, p. 297. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 347 



act must have been of the person and of the minister 
recording his name."* The "joint act" of joining 
the Church! The question, How shall I proceed to 
take a member into the Church? is answered in this 
luminous style: "By bringing the matter to the test 
of whatever was considered by both of the parties as 
tending to the effect contemplated.'! Surely Dr. 
White's instructions must have furnished employment 
for many of the far-famed " Philadelphia lawyers," 
whose skill in abstruse and "circumvented rhetoric" 
must have been taxed by this diplomatic style of com- 
position. "It must be confessed, however," says Dr. 
White, "that this manifests an imperfect state of dis- 
cipline." f A few Methodist preachers would have 
relieved "the clergy" of this distressing embarrass- 
ment by the simplest of means— conformity to the 
word of God. 

Bishop Madison's proposition to unite with the 
Methodist Episcopal Church was made in the General 
Convention of 1792. The document is. not without in- 
terest in this connection: 

"The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United 
States of America, ever bearing in mind the sacred 
obligation which attends all the followers of Christ, to 
avoid divisions among themselves, and anxious to pro- 
mote that union for which our Lord and Saviour so 
earnestly prayed, clo hereby declare to the Christian 
world that, uninfluenced by any other considerations 
than those of duty as Christians, and an earnest desire 
for the prosperity of pure Christianity and the fur- 
therance of our holy religion, they are ready and will- 
ing to unite and form one body with any religious so- 
* Memoir?, p. 258. f Ibid. 



348 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



ciety which shall be influenced by the same catholic 
spirit. And in order that this Christian end may be 
the more easily effected, they farther declare that all 
things in which the great essentials of Christianity or 
the characteristic principles of their Church are not 
concerned they are willing to leave to future discus- 
sion, being ready to alter or modify those points which, 
in the opinion of the Protestant Episcopal Church, are 
subject to human alteration. And it is hereby recom- 
mended to the State Conventions to adopt such meas- 
ures, or propose such conferences with Christians of 
other denominations, as to themselves may be thought 
most prudent, and report accordingly to the ensuing 
General Convention."* 

"On the reading of this in the House of Clerical 
and Lay Deputies, they were astonished, and consid- 
ered it altogether preposterous," says Dr. White, 
" tending to produce distrust of the stability of the system 
of the Episcopal Church, without the least prospect of 
embracing any other religions body. The members 
generally mentioned, as a matter of indulgence, that 
they would permit the withdrawing of the paper, no 
notice to be taken of it. A few gentlemen, however, 
who had got some slight intimations of the corre- 
spondence between Dr. Coke and the author, who 
would have been gratified by an accommodation with 
the Methodists, and who thought that the paper sent 
was a step in measures to be taken to that effect, spoke 
in favor of the proposition; but it was not to be en- 
dured, and the bishops silently withdrew it, agreeably 
to leave given." f 

This story never appears in Episcopal tracts. It is 
* Memoirs, p. 195. f Ibid., p. 19G. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 349 



never seen in "A Methodist in Search of the Church," 
or "Looking for the Church," or any other of that 
prolific family of proselyting books. But it is a part 
of the history of the Protestant Episcopal Church. 
Nor did Bishop Madison cease his efforts because he 
was "permitted to withdraw" this "preposterous" 
proposition. He renewed the subject in the next con- 
vention of his diocese, bringing it formally before the 
body in his annual address. He called for informa- 
tion from persons present, if they had any, tending to 
the conclusion that the difficulties in the way of such 
a union could be removed. Everybody knew that 
none but Methodists could be referred to in these 
propositions, and they were made by Bishop Madison 
before he had one word of information concerning the let- 
ter of Dr. Coke, and before he knew that such a letter had 
been written. That there was a "distrust of the sta- 
bility of the system of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church" in the mind of Bishop Madison, is more 
than probable, for he was a sad spectator of a waning 
interest in his Church in his own diocese. In 1794 
eleven ministers only appeared in convention. The 
Journals of 1795 are lost. A slight rally occurs in 
1796; a decline in 1797; no Journal for 1798; fifteen 
clergymen in 1799, and a pathetic address from the 
bishop. Then follow from the pen of the editor these 
significant words: "From the best information which 
the author has been able to collect, the depressed con- 
dition of the Church led to the entire discontinuance 
of the conventional meetings for several years. There 
will, therefore, be found irregularity in the Journals 
from this period up to 1812."- In point of fact, 



^Journals of Virginia Conventions, p. S3. 



350 



from 1799 to 1812 it appears from the record that 
only one convention was held, and that a special one, 
in 1805. No wonder that Bishop Madison had " very 
much at heart" a union with the Methodist Episcopal 
Church! 

Is it not as clear as the noonday that Dr. Coke's 
proposition made no overture to the Episcopalians 
that was not expressed in Bishop Madison's approach 
to the Methodists? Neither proposed to sacrifice any 
essential principle, the difference in the proposals be- 
ing, in the first instance, the sudden, impulsive enter- 
prise of a man whose judgment was at fault, and, in 
the second instance, the well-considered and often re- 
peated measure of the Episcopal bishop, who saw the 
elements of indifference and worldliness producing 
the most direful results in his Church. If, then, Dr. 
Coke's letter contained a surrender to the " apostolical 
succession," Bishop Madison's proposal placed the 
"successors of the apostles" in the power of a Meth- 
odist Conference, 



GfppteP XML 

Dr. Coke's Letter to Dr. Seabury — Misrepresentations in Beards- 
lev's Life of Seabury— Statements not Sustained— Coke's Letter 
of Explanation— Dr. Coke did not Publish a Retraction of His 
Action in Organizing the Methodist Episcopal Church— Injurious 
Turn Given to Innocent Expressions— The Attempt at Separation 
which he Retracted was in Europe, not in America — A Nest of 
Errors— Separation Again Defined— AVh at Dr. Coke Did — He Ex- 
plains His Own Words — Ordination not Necessarily by Laying on 
of Hands — Romanist Orders— No Episcopacy by Divine Right— 
Dr Milner— A Favorite Authority of the Bishop of Oxford. 

RESUMING the thread of this narrative, we ob- 
serve Dr. Coke on his way to New York, and 
thence to England. In Baltimore, on Sunday, May 
1, 1791, he preached a funeral-discourse in memory of 
Mr. Wesley, "and mentioned some things that gave 
offense," says Bishop Asburv. "Having taken a seat 
in the mail-coach," says Mr. Drew, " Dr. Coke depart- 
ed from Baltimore very early on Monday morning, 
but was somewhat indisposed during the day. The 
following morning when he attempted to rise he found 
himself totally unable to proceed." * His illness pre- 
vented him from reaching New York in time for the 
packet-ship, and he proceeded to Philadelphia, where 
he remained nine days. It was during this time that 
he received Dr. White's answer to his letter, and here 
he had several conversations with that gentleman. 
On the 14th of May he left Philadelphia for New- 
castle, where a ship was ready to sail for London. 
* Drew's Life of Coke, p. 232. 

(351) 



352 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



Before lie left, he wrote the following letter to Dr. 
Samuel Seabury: 

Bight Reverend Sir: From your well-known character I am going 
to open my mind to you on a subject of very great moment. 

Being educated a member of the Church of England from my 
earliest infancy, being ordained of that Church, and having taken 
two degrees in arts and two degrees in civil law in the University 
of Oxford, which is entirely under the patronage of the Church of 
England, I was almost a bigot in its favor when I first joined that 
great and good man Mr. John Wesley, which is fourteen years ago. 
For five or six years after my union with Mr. Wesley I remained 
fixed in my attachment to the Church of England; but afterward 
for many reasons which it would be tedious and useless to mention, 
I changed my sentiments, and promoted a separation from it as far 
as my influence reached. Within these two years I am come back 
again; my love for the Church of England has returned. I think 
I am attached to it on a ground much more rational— and conse- 
quently much less likely to be shaken— than formerly. I have many 
a time run into error; but to be ashamed of confessing my error 
when convinced of it has never been one of my defects. Therefore, 
when I was fully convinced of my error in the steps I took to bring- 
about a separation from the Church of England in Europe, I deliv- 
ered, before a congregation of about three thousand people in our 
largest chapel in Dublin, on a Sunday evening after preaching, an 
exhortation, which in fact amounted to a recantation of my error. 
Some time afterward I repeated the same in our largest chapels in 
London and in several other parts of England and Ireland, and I 
have reason to believe that my proceedings in this respect have 
given a death-blow to all the hopes of a separation which may ex- 
ist in the minds of any in those kingdoms. 

On the same principles I most cordially wish for a reunion of 
the Protestant Episcopal and Methodist Churches in these States. 
The object is of vast magnitude. Our work now reaches to Boston, 
northward; to Wilkes county, in Georgia, southward; to Albany, 
Vermont, and Lake Champlain, Redstone, and Kentucky, westward 
— a length of about one thousand three hundred or one thousand four 
hundred miles, and a breadth of between five hundred and one 
thousand. Our Society in the States amounts to upward of sixty 
thousand. These, I am persuaded, may with safety be multiplied 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 353 

by five to give us our regular Sunday's congregations, which will 
make three hundred thousand. If the calculations of some great 
writers be just, three-fifths of any given country consists of un- 
adults. So that the families, the adults of which regularly attend 
divine service among us, amount, according to this mode of calcula- 
tion, to seven hundred and fifty thousand. About a fifth part of 
these are blacks. How great, then, would be the strength of our 
Church (will you give me leave to call it so? — I mean the Protestant 
Episcopal) if the two sticks were made one? 

But how can this be done? The magnitude of the object would 
justify considerable sacrifices. A solemn engagement to use your 
prayer-book in all our places of worship on the Lord's-day would 
of course be a sine qua non — a concession we should be obliged to make 
on our part (if it may be called a concession); and there would be, 
I doubt not, other concessions to be made by us. But what conces- 
sion would it be necessary for you to make? For the opening of 
this subject with all possible candor, it will be necessary to take a 
view of the present state of the ministry in the Methodist Church 
in these States. 

We have about two hundred and fifty traveling preachers, and a 
vastly greater number of local preachers — 1 mean preachers who 
live on their plantations or are occupied in the exercise of trades or 
professions and confined to a small sphere of action in respect to 
their ministerial labors. About seventy of our traveling preachers 
are elders (as we call them), or presbyters. These are the most 
eminent and most approved of the whole body, and a very excel- 
lent set of clergy I really believe they are. We have about the 
same number of deacons among the traveling preachers, who exer- 
cise the office of deacon according to the plan of the Church of En- 
gland. These ministers, both presbyters and deacons, must be elect- 
ed by a majority of the Conference before they can be ordained. A 
superintendent only ordains the deacons; and the superintendent 
must make one of the presbytery for the ordination of a priest, or 
elder; and the superintendents are invested with a negative voice 
in respect to the ordination of any person that has been elected for 
the office either of elder or deacon. Among the local preachers 
there is no higher office than that of a deacon. The local preacher 
does not pass through an election for this office; but if he bring a 
testimonial signed by three elders (one of whom must be what we 
call a presiding elder, one who has the government of a district — 
23 



354 



The High-churchman Disarmed : 



i. c, several circuits joined together), three deacons, three unordained 
preachers, and the majority of the class of which he is a member 
(or the stewards and leaders of the whole society of which he is a 
member), a superintendent may then, if he please, ordain him; and 
a great many of the oldest and wisest of the local preachers have 
been ordained deacons on this plan. 

Now, on a reunion's taking place, our ministers — both elders and 
deacons— would expect to have, and ought to have, the same author- 
ity they have at present of administering the ordinances according 
to the respective powers already vested in them. For this pur- 
pose I well know they must submit to a reordlnation, which I be- 
lieve might be easily brought about if every other hinderance was 
removed out of the way. But the grand objection would arise from 
the want of confidence which the deacons and unordained preachers 
would experience. The present bishops might give them such as- 
surances as would per.haps remove all their fears concerning them. 
But they could give no security for their successors, or for any new 
bishops who may be consecrated for the Episcopal Church in those 
States which have not at present an Episcopal minister. The requi- 
sition of learning for the ministry (I mean the knowledge of the 
New Testament in the original and of the Latin tongue) would be 
an insuperable objection on this ground, as the present bishops and 
the present members of the general convention can give no sufficient, 
security for their successors; and the preachers could never, I be- 
lieve, be induced to give up the full confidence they have in their 
present superintendents, that they shall in due time rise to the 
higher offices of the Church according to their respective merits, 
for any change of situation in which the confidence they should then 
possess would not be equivalent. But what can be done to gain this 
confidence on the plan of a reunion of the two Churches? I will 
answer this important question with all simplicity, plainness, and 
boldness; and the more so because, first, I am addressing myself, I 
have no doubt, to a person of perfect candor; secondly, I have a re- 
union so much at heart that I would omit nothing that may, accord- 
ing to the best of my judgment, throw light on the subject; and 
thirdly, because I think I am not in danger from your charitable spirit 
to be suspected in the present instance of pressing after worldly 
honor, as it is probable I shall be elected president of the European 
Methodists, and shall not, I believe, receive greater marks of respect 
from the Methodists in these States— supposing I ever be a bishop 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



355 



of the Protestant Episcopal Church — than they are at present so 
kind as to show me. Mr. Asbury, our resident superintendent, is a 
great and good man. He possesses — and justly — the esteem of most 
of the preachers and most of the people. Now, if the general con- 
vention of the clergy consented that he should be consecrated a 
bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church on the supposition of a 
reunion, a very capital hinderance would be removed out of the 
way. 

Again, I love the Methodists in America, and could not think of 
leaving them entirely, whatever might happen to me in Europe. 
The preachers and people also love me. Many of them' have a pe- 
culiar regard for me. But I could not ivith propriety visit the Amer- 
ican Methodists possessing in our Church on this side of the water 
an office inferior to that of Mr. Asbury. But if the two houses of 
the convention of the clergy would consent to the consecration of 
Mr. Asbury and me as bishops of the Methodist Society in the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in these United States, or by any other 
title, if that be not proper, on the supposition of the reunion of the 
two Churches under proper mutual stipulations, and engage that the 
Methodist Society shall have a regular supply on the death of their 
bishops, and so ad perpetuum, the grand difficulty in respect to the 
preachers would be removed; they would have the same men to con- 
fide in whom they have at present, and all other mutual stipulations 
would soon be settled. I said in respect to the preachers, for I do not 
fully know Mr. Asbury's mind on the subject, I have my fears in 
respect to his sentiments; and if he do not accede to the union, it 
will not take place so completely as I could wish. I wish you could 
see my sinful heart; but that is impossible. 

I think I need not observe that if things were brought to a happy 
issue we should still expect to enjoy all our rights as a Society in the 
most exclusive sense, as we do now in Europe. I mean the receiving 
or rejecting members in or from our classes, bands, love-feasts, etc. 

I have had the honor of three interviews with Bishop White on 
this subject, and some correspondence. In the present state of things 
I must entreat the favor of you to lay this business only before your 
cofmdential friends. And if you honor me with a letter by the 
June packet, directed to the Rev. Dr. Coke, at the new chapel, City 
Eoad, London, I will write to you again immediately after the En- 
glish Conference, which will commence in Manchester the last Tues- 
day in next July. 



356 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



The importance of the subject on which I have now written to 
you will, I think, prevent the necessity of an apology for the liberty 
I have taken in writing to you. Permit me to subscribe mvself 
with great respect, right reverend sir, your very humble and' obe- 
dient servant, m r , 

da •/ 777' ,\ Ihomas Coke. 

Philadelphia, May 14, 1791. 

The Eight Eeverend Father in God, Bishop Seabury. 

It is remarkable that no mention is made of Mr- 
Wesley's death in this letter. The only sentence that 
can be construed into a reference to that event is the 
writer's expectation of being elected "president of 
the European Methodists," an expectation that was 
not verified. In the supercilious style so frequently 
practiced by the pretended "successors of the apos- 
tles"^ this country, Dr. E. Edward Beardsley, au- 
thor of the "Life of Samuel Seabury," says: "Dr. 
, Coke evidently felt that he was merely a superintend- 
ent, and had no authority as a bishop in the Church 
of God, and this feeling and other considerations 
prompted. him to write, nearly two months after the 
death of John Wesley, first to Bishop White and then, 
three weeks later-May 14, 1791-to Bishop Seabury,' 
proposing measures for a reunion of the Methodists 
with the Episcopal Church."* 

If this writer had a proper regard for the ninth 
commandment he would at least permit Dr. Coke 
to speak for himself. If the proposal to unite the 
Methodists and the Episcopalians proved that Dr. 
Coke felt that he had no " authority as a bishop in 
the Church of God," what does Dr. Madison's propo- 
sition to unite the Episcopalians with the Methodists 
prove? That Dr. Madison felt that he had "no au- 
thority as a bishop in the Church of God ? " For more 

*Life of Seabury, p, 311. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 357 



than seventy-five years Dr. Coke's explanation of his 
letter to Dr. White has been before the world. Why, 
in the name of every thing that is fair and honorable, do 
Episcopalian writers force a meaning upon this man's 
words against his protest? Dr. Coke has stated, in as 
strong terms as the language affords, that he did not 
doubt the validity of his ordination as a bishop in the 
Church of God. Shall Dr. Beardsley assume "infal- 
libility " as well as " apostoiicity," and speak as an apos- 
tolical discerner of spirits, professing to know that a 
certain thing was in the mind of a writer when that 
writer says most positively that it was not there ? Upon 
what principle of justice is this conduct based? Ad- 
mitting that Dr. Coke committed a great blunder — 
and it is doubtful if there exists a Methodist at this 
day who does not believe that the letter to Dr. White 
was a grievous blunder — why will sensible men con- 
tinue to make more of this matter than is actually 
contained in it? 

Beyond question the purpose is to make Dr. Coke 
say that he doubted the validity of his ordination by 
Mr. Wesley. In his letter to the author of this vol- 
ume, Dr. Beardsley says it is a "fair inference" that 
he did doubt it. But Dr. Coke says he did nothing 
of the kind. Which is the best authority for Dr, 
Coke's opinions, Dr. Beardsley or Dr. Coke? Be- 
cause Dr. White and Dr. Provoost and the Episcopa- 
lians generally doubted, and many of them denied, the 
validity of Dr. Seabury's episcopal orders, is it fair 
to compel Dr. Coke to doubt his own in the face of his 
positive statement to the contrary? 

When the matter was first made public Dr. Coke 
was in Europe. In response to a letter requesting in- 



358 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



formation, lie addressed a letter to the Kev. Ezekiel 
Cooper, and this letter was presented to the General 
Conference of 1808, viz.: 

Near Leeds (Yorkshire), January 29, 1808. 
To the General American Conference. 

My Very Dear Brethren: I wrote you a letter about two 
months ago, directed to the care of my dear brethren, the Messrs. 
Cooper and Wilson, ia which I briefly opened my mind to you con- 
cerning my relations toward yon, observing to this purport that if 
you judged that my being with you would help to preserve your 
union, and if I was allowed to give my opinion or judgment on 
every station of the preachers as far as I chose, and upon every thing 
else that could come under the inspection of the bishops, or superin- 
tendents, you might call me, and we would settle our affairs in Eu- 
rope as soon as possible, and sail for America and be with you for 
life. Without your compliance in the latter point — viz., in respect 
to a full right of giving my judgment — I should be so far from be- 
ing useful in preserving union that I should merely fill the place of 
a preacher. 

But there is one point more which I must also notice. I find 
that a letter which I wrote to Bishop White in 1791 has been ani- 
madverted upon, though, if I mistake not, the letter itself has not 
been published. 

There are very few of you who can possibly recollect any thing 
of what I am now about to add. Many of you were then little chil- 
dren. We had at that time no regular General Conferences. One 
only had been held in 1784. I had indeed, with great labor and 
fatigue, a few months before I wrote this letter to Bishop White, 
prevailed on James O'Kelly and the thirty-six traveling preachers 
w r ho had withdrawn with him from all connection with Bishop 
Asbury to submit to the decision of a General Conference. This 
Conference was to be held in about a year and a half after my de- 
parture from the States. And at this Conference — held, I think, the 
latter end of 1792 — I proposed and obtained that great blessing to 
the American Connection, a permanency for General Conferences, 
which were to be held at stated times. Previously to the holding 
of this Conference (except the general one held in 1784) there were 
only small district meetings, except the Council which was held at 
Cokesbury College in 1791 or 1792. Except the union which most 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 359 



justly subsisted between Bishop Asbury on the one hand and the 
preachers and people on the other, the Society, as such, taken in 
the aggregate, was almost like a rope of sand. I longed to see mat- 
ters on a footing likely to be permanent. Bishop x\sbury did the 
same; and it was that view of tilings, I doubt not, that led Bishop 
Asbury, the year before, to call and to endeavor to establish a regu- 
lar Council, who were to meet him annually at Cokesbury. In this 
point I differed in sentiment from my venerable brother. But I 
saw the danger of our situation, though I well knew that God was 
sufficient for all things. I did verily believe then that, under God, 
the Connection would be more likely to be saved from convulsions 
by a union with the old Episcopal Church than any other way — not 
by a dereliction of ordination, sacraments, and the Methodist Dis- 
cipline, but by a junction on proper terms. Bishop White, in two 
interviews I had with him in Philadelphia, gave me reason to be- 
lieve that this junction might be accomplished with ease. Dr. Ma- 
gaw was perfectly sure of it. Indeed (if Mr. Ogden, of New J er- 
sey, did not mistake in the information he gave me), a canon passed 
the House of Bishops of the old Episcopal Church in favor of it * 
Bishop Madison, according to the same information, took the canon 
to the lower house. " But it was there thrown out," said Mr. Og- 
den, to whom I explained the whole business, " because they did not 
understand the full meaning of it." Mr. Ogden added that he spoke 
against it because he did not understand it, but that it would have met 
with his warm support had he understood the full intention of it.f 

I had provided in the fullest manner in my indispensable, neces- 
sary conditions for the security and, I may say, for the independence 
of our discipline and places of worship. But I thought (perhaps 
erroneously, and I believe so noiv) that our field of action would have 
been exceedingly enlarged by that junction, and that myriads would 
have attended our ministry in consequence of it who were at that 
time much prejudiced against us. All things unitedly considered 
led me to write the letter and meet Bishop White and Dr. Magaw 
on the subject in Philadelphia. 

*The House of Bishops then consisted of four persons— Bishops Seabun'r 
White, Provoost, and Madison. — W. P. H. 

| This evidently refers to the proposition of Bishop Madison, made at -the 
convention of 1792. Aerwdino; to Dr. White, this proposition was entirely in- 
dependent of Dr. Coke's letter, and it was withdrawn by consent^ because it 
could not accomplish the end desired.— W. P. H. 



360 The High-churchman Disarmed, 



But it may be asked why I did not consult Bishop Asbury before 
I took these steps. I answer, It was impossible. I was at and near 
Philadelphia, and he was somewhere in the South.- We had fin- 
ished our district meetings, and he was to be in the State of Mary- 
land about the time of my sailing for England. I wanted that every 
thing should be prepared against my return— God willing, in about 
a year and a half— for further consideration; that Bishop White 
etc., should have time to consult their convention; and that I mio-ht 
also lay the matter before Bishop Asbury, and correspond with him 
upon the subject, and after that, if proper, bring the business before the 
General Conference, which was to be held in order to take into con- 
sideration James O' Kelly's division. Before I sailed for England 
I met Bishop Asbury at Newcastle, in the State of Delaware (from 
winch place I went on board), and laid the matter before him, who, 
with that caution which peculiarly characterizes him, gave me no 
decisive opinion on the subject. 

The next objection (and I think the only important one remain- 
ing) is the following: "If you did not think that the episcopal ordi- 
nation of Mr. Asbury was valid, why did you ordain him? Was 
there not duplicity in this business ?" I answer: 

1 I never, since I could reason on those things, considered the 
doctrine of the uninterrupted apostolic succession of bishops as at all valid 
or true. 

2. I am of our late venerable father Mr. Wesley's opinion— that 
the order of bishops and presbyters is one and the same. 

3. I believe that the episcopal form of Church government is the 
best m the world when the episcopal power is under due regulation 
and responsibility. 

4. I believe that it is well to follow the example of the primi- 
tive Church, as exemplified in the word of God, bv setting apart 
persons for great ministerial purposes by the imposition of hands, 
but especially those who are appointed for offices of the first rank 
in the Church. 

* Dr Coke's memory, after the lapse of seventeen years, cannot he expected 
to recall every circumstance connected with this affair. Bishop Asbury was not 
in Dr. Coke's neighborhood in Philadelphia when he had the interviews with Dr 
White, but when the letter was written Dr. Coke was in Richmond and Bishop 
Asbury was only a few miles distant. Coke's letter was still nnpnblished-at 
least it had not reached his eyes in print-and the perturbation of his mind 
in 1791 must account for the seeming lapses into which he had fallen in 1808. 



A Defense of Oar Methodist Fathers. 361 



From all I have advanced you may easily perceive, my dear breth- 
ren, that I do not consider the imposition of hands, on the one hand, 
as essentially necessary for any office in the Church ; nor do I, on 
the other hand, think that the repetition of the imposition of hands 
for the same office, when important circumstances require it, is at 
all improper. 

If it be granted that my plan of union with the old Episcopal 
Church was desirable {which now I think was not so, though I most sin- 
cerely believed it to be so at that time), then, if the plan could not have 
been accomplished without a repetition of the imposition of hands 
for the same office, I did believe, and do now believe, and have no 
doubt that the repetition of the imposition of hands would have been 
perfectly justifiable for the enlargement of the field of action, etc., 
and would not, by any means, have invalidated the former consecra- 
tion or imposition of hands. Therefore, I have no doubt but my 
consecration of Bishop Asbury was perfectly valid, and would have 
been so even if he had been reconsecrated. I never did apply to the 
general convention or any other convention for reconsecration* I 
never intended that either Bishop Asbury or myself should give up 
our episcopal office if the junction were to take place; but I should 
have had no scruple then, nor should I now, if the junction were desir- 
able, to have submitted to or to submit to a rei'mposition of hands in 
order to accomplish a great object ; but I do say again, I do not now 
believe such a junction desirable. 

I have thus simply and candidly, though in few words, told you 
my whole mind on this subject. I do not consider my solemn en- 
gagements to you invalidated by any thing I have done or you have 
done. But I charge you, by the glory of God, and by every tie of 
love, gratitude, and candor, that you take no step which may injure 
my character. And now I conclude with assuring you that I great- 
ly love and esteem you; that it is a delight to me to pray for your 
prosperity; and that lam your very affectionate brother and faithful 
friend > T. Coke. 

In reply to this communication the General Con- 
ference of 1808 directed a letter to be sent to Dr. 

*This, in all fairness, must be taken as an absolute disclaimer. He 
made no application to any person or convention for consecration at 
the hands of the bishops of the P. E. Church.— W. P. II. 



362 The Eigh-churchman Disarmed: 

Coke. In this letter the following paragraphs relate 
to the question under discussion : 

"Your two letters were respectfully received, and 
had a salutary effect upon our minds. The reasons 
which you have assigned for some former transactions, 
and the ingenuous candor which you have manifested 
in frankly acknowledging and declaring the motives 
and inducements that led you to those measures, to- 
gether with your affectionate acknowledgment that in 
certain cases you were mistaken as to your views of 
some of the points in question, as likewise your man- 
ifest friendship and good- will to this Connection and 
your American brethren, and your evident solicitude 
to retain a place and standing among us— taking these 
circumstances collectively, they had a great influence 
upon some of our minds in removing certain suspi- 
cious fears which had been imbibed rather unfavor- 
able to your standing among us. 

"You may be assured that we feel an affectionate 
regard for you; that we gratefully remember your re- 
peated labors of love toward us; and that we sensibly 
feel our obligations for the services you have rendered 
us. We hope that no circumstance will ever alienate 
our Christian affection from you, or yours from us. 
We wish to maintain and to cultivate a good under- 
standing and brotherly unity with you and with all 
our European brethren. In full Conference, of near 
one hundred and thirty members, we entered into a 
very long conversation, and very serious and solemn 
debate upon sundry resolutions which were laid be- 
fore us relative to your case. Probably on no former 
occasion, in any Conference in America, was so much 
said in defense of your character and to your honor 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 363 



as a ministerial servant of God and his Church. Your 
worth, your labors, your disinterested services, fa- 
tigues, dangers, and difficulties to serve your Ameri- 
can brethren were set forth pathetically, and urged 
with the force of reason and truth in an argumenta- 
tive manner; and our candid and impartial judgments 
were constrained to yield to the conclusion that we 
were bound by the ties of moral and religious obliga- 
tions to treat you most respectfully, and to retain a 
grateful remembrance of all your labors of love to- 
ward us." 

This letter of the General Conference, while deal- 
ing tenderly with Dr. Coke, does not fail to emphasize 
the error which he had committed in attempting a ne- 
gotiation which, under any conceivable circumstances, 
could result in no benefit to American Methodism. 
That his error was solely one of judgment is ad- 
mitted; but the misrepresentations to which it gave 
origin and currency brought no little embarrassment 
to the Methodists of that day. Dr. Coke's past serv- 
ices could not be forgotten; but the time had come 
in which the American Church was fully capable of 
supplying within its own borders the necessary wis- 
dom and experience to superintend the affairs of the 
Connection. As the British Conference had requested 
it, therefore Dr. Coke was permitted to reside perma- 
nently in Europe, only to visit America on the call of 
the General Conference. 

There is one issue which Dr. Beardsley has chosen 
to make in his "Life of Seabury," and it is accepted as 
readily as it is tendered. "A movement of great im- 
portance," says Dr. Beardsley, "which was kept se- 
cret for the time, was made in 1791. It was nothing 



364 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



less than a proposition to reunite the Methodists in 
America with the Protestant Episcopal Church; and 
it took the form of an application from the Bev. Dr. 
Thomas Coke, an Oxford graduate and a presbyter of 
the Church of England, who for fourteen years had 
been following John Wesley, arid, like him, not in- 
tending to promote a separation, which had now been 
actually accomplished. Discovering his error, he pub- 
licly recanted, and repeated his recantation in the 
largest chapels in London and other parts of Great 
Britain."* 

Let the reader observe that Dr. Beardsley says 
"the separation had been actually accomplished." 
"What separation ? Of the American Methodists from 
the Episcopalians. There is no other meaning that 
these words can bear. "Discovering his error" in 
promoting this separation in America, Dr. Coke "pub- 
licly recanted, and repeated his recantation in the 
largest chapels in London and other parts of Great 
Britain." Upon being challenged for his authority 
for making the statement that Dr. Coke not only re- 
canted the error of organizing the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church in America, but "repeated his recantation 
in the largest chapels in London and Great Britain," 
Dr. Beardsley refers to Coke's letter to Seabury for 
his authority. 

Now, let us see what Dr. Coke says in that letter 
upon this subject: 

" Therefore, when I was fully convinced of my er- 
ror in the steps I took to bring about a separation from 
the Church of England in Europe, I delivered, before a 
congregation of about three thousand people, in our 
* Life of Seabury, p. 310. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 365 



largest chapel in Dublin, on a Sunday evening after 
preaching, an exhortation, which in fact amounted to 
a recantation of my error. Some time afterward, I 
repeated the same in our largest chapels in London 
and in several other parts of England and Ireland, and 
I have reason to believe that my proceedings in this respect 
have given a death-blow to all the hopes of a separation 
which may exist in the minds of any in those kingdoms." 

The "separation," whatever and wherever it was, 
Dr. Coke says has received a death-blow. Dr. Beards- 
ley says it has been accomplished. Dr. Coke says the 
separation he is writing about was in Europe; it suits 
Dr. Beardsley's purpose to say it is in America. Is 
it possible that Dr. Beardsley, withholding the letter 
from his readers, intends to create an impression that 
Dr. Coke recanted publicly his action in America, 
when he knew that the recantation referred to related 
to Coke's efforts to separate the Wesleyans from the 
Church in England? That such is the construction 
placed upon his statement by the writer in the Church 
Review is apparent from these words: "Dr. Beardsley 
tells us that after Wesley's death, in 1791, Coke, who 
was a graduate of Oxford, applied to Bishops Seabury 
and White to impart the apostolical succession to him- 
self and Aston; and, not obtaining this request, re- 
turned to England and publicly recanted his schism." 

The errors in this short extract exceed the number 
of lines employed in printing it: 1. When Dr. Coke 
wrote his letter to Dr. White he did not know that 
Wesley was dead. 2. He did not apply to either 
White or Seabury for the " apostolical succession." 
3. Dr. White would not have united with Dr. Seabury 
in imparting the " succession " if it had been applied 



366 The HigJi-cJiurcJunan Disarmed: 



for. 4. Drs. White and Seabury did not refuse to 
impart the succession. 5. There was no such person as 
"Aston." 6. Dr. Coke had made no schism. 7. Con- 
sequently he could not recant it. The whole statement 
is an error from the first phrase to the concluding word. 
As a specimen of misrepresentation reduced to its last 
analysis, the sentence stands unrivaled in the annals 
of literature. 

The explanation of Dr. Coke's meaning concerning 
the " error ' and its recantation is by no means diffi- 
cult. But in order to understand it we must let Mr. 
Wesley explain the meaning of "separation from the 
Church " once more. " The question properly refers," 
says Mr. Wesley under date of September 20, 1788, 
" to a total and immediate separation. Such was that 
of Mr. Ingham's people first, and afterward that of 
Lady Huntingdon's, who all agreed to form themselves 
into a separate body without delay, to go to church no 
more, and to have no more connection with the Church 
of England than with the Church of Rome. Such a sep- 
aration I have always declared against, and certainly 
it will not take place (if ever it does) ' while I live. 
But a kind of separation has already taken place, and 
will inevitably spread, though by slow degrees. Those 
ministers, so called, who neither live nor preach the 
gospel, I dare not say are sent of God. Where one 
of these is settled many of the Methodists dare not 
attend his ministry; so, if there be no other church 
in that neighborhood, they go to church no more.j 
This is the case in a few places already, and it will be 
the case in more; and no one can justly blame me for 
this; neither is it contrary to any of my professions." * 
-Works, vol. xiii., p. 263. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 367 



Such are the disabilities of a "National Church," 
an institution foreign to the scriptural account of the 
kingdom of God. Nobody can enter it except by birth 
and baptism; nobody is expelled from it except by 
expatriation or death. Of discipline it knows noth- 
ing; and hence it is a mere hazard whether the man 
who is called "minister" knows any thing of the gos- 
pel he is required to preach. If he does not, there 
is no remedy. There is no hope for the people thus 
burdened with a blind guide. There were many of 
these, and not a few of the bishops were persecutors 
in a proper sense. To one of these bishops Mr. Wes- 
ley wrote in "1790, and plainly charged him with driv- 
ing the Methodists from the Church. "And is it a 
Christian — yea, a Protestant — bishop that so perse- 
cutes his own flock?" asks the venerable man. "I 
say persecutes," he adds, " for it is persecution to all 
intents and purposes." 

The restive spirit of Dr. Coke, coming from free 
America, with its young and vigorous Church, be- 
lieved that it would be best to cut loose from the Es- 
tablishment, and preach the gospel to all that would 
hear, and at any hour of the day. Consequently, he 
set the example, preaching in Dublin and other places 
during "church hours," and administering the com- 
munion. Mr. Charles Wesley had been doing this 
very thing for many years in London, but John Wes- 
ley disapproved of Dr. Coke's movement. In order 
to test the matter he made a proposition to the Meth- 
odists of Dublin. If they would attend the parish 
church once in the month, he would give them a noon 
service three Sabbaths in the month. This arrange- 
ment worked well. It doubled the attendance at the 



The High-church man Disarmed: 



parish church, and it quieted the feeling for a complete 
separation. It was this plan of compromise that won 
the impulsive Doctor; and as a man of peace he did 
not hesitate to indorse it, and thus recanted the error 
of promoting a separation in Europe. But what had 
that to do with the Methodist Episcopal Church in 
America ? Less, if possible, than Dr. Beardsley's rep- 
resentation has to do with the sober truth of history. 

But Dr. Coke admitted that Mr. Wesley did not 
have the authority to confer episcopal powers, for he 
says in his letter to Dr. White: "He did indeed invest 
me, as far as he had a right to do so, with episcopal 
authority." This argument is offered by Episcopali- 
ans as a proof that Dr. Coke knew that Mr. Wesley 
had no right to make him a bishop. The statement 
is one of those vicious half-truths that are so injuri- 
ous to every good cause. Mr. Wesley had as much 
right to make Dr. Coke a bishop as the Archbishop 
of Canterbury had to make Dr. White a bishop. Sup- 
pose that the Episcopal ministers and laymen in Penn- 
sylvania had refused to receive Dr. White, what would 
have been the nature of his episcopal authority? All 
the bishops in England could no more make a bishop 
of the diocese of Pennsylvania than they could make 
a President of the United States. Authority in the 
Church comes from the Church, not from the ordain- 
ing minister, whether bishop or presbyter. Ordina- 
tion confers no authority; it only recognizes it as al- 
ready conferred by the Church to which the minister 
belongs. This authority in the Church is under lim- 
itations. It must be a scriptural character, for a script- 
ural purpose; and if these conditions be complied 
with the form in which the ordination is expressed 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 369 



amounts to nothing. There is nothing essential in the 
form. 

Therefore, if Dr. Coke had been rejected by the 
American Methodists he would not have been a bish- 
op. The superstitious idea of a depositum of epis- 
copal power transmitted by the hands of the ordainer 
deserves less consideration than the Romanist theory 
of succession. Mr. Wesley's views were eminently 
scriptural, notwithstanding the shackles of a State 
hierarchy that impeded his plans and often thwart- 
ed them. " Last autumn Dr. Coke sailed from En- 
gland," he writes February 25, 1785, " and is now vis- 
iting the flock in the midland provinces of America, 
and settling them on the New Testament plan, to 
which they all willingly and joyfully conform, being 
all united, as by one Spirit, so in one body. I trust 
they will no more want such pastors as are after God's 
own heart." * As far as he could give any man au- 
thority over the flock he gave it to Dr. Coke; but 
Francis Asbury, weaned by many years of labor' and 
study from the traditions of an unscriptural hierarchy, 
could not fail to realize the necessity for the origin of 
Church authority in the Church itself. He would 
take no episcopal authority from Mr. Wesley until the 
Church had elected him to the office. This is the 
true position. It is the rock foundation on which all 
Church authority must be built. "As far as he had 
a right to do so," then, simply recognizes the right of 
the Church to accept or reject an appointment from 
him whom they recognized as, under God, "the father 
of the family." 

But it is said further that Dr. Coke confessed the nul- 

* Works, vol. xiii., p. 137. 

24 



370 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



lity of his own ordination by his willingness to submit 
to the " laying on of hands " the second time. This ar- 
gument is valid against those only who regard the 
imposition of hands as an essential part of ordination. 
The Wesley an Methodists, although they had ordained 
ministers before the death of Mr. Wesley, and con- 
tinuously afterward, never practiced the imposition of 
hands until the year 1835. To those who are accus- 
tomed to the "laying on of hands" in ordination, the 
omission of the ceremony seems to be fatal to the 
rite itself. But this is simply because the force of 
habit has taken the place of reason. There is noth- 
ing in the New Testament that inseparably connects 
the imposition of hands with the fact of ordination. 
Indeed, it is only because the act is a symbol of im- 
ploring the divine blessing and guidance to the per- 
son ordained that it deserves to be employed at all. 
In most Churches the symbol of authority given to 
the candidate is the placing of the Bible in his hands. 
It is the book of God that is given as a treasure-house, 
a guide, a rule of life. It is given in the name of the 
Church because it is to be used to edify the Church. 
It is that without which and beyond which neither 
Church nor minister has any right, any authority, 
whatever. 

When we say, then, that Dr. Coke was willing to 
submit to the reimpositon of hands, and that he could 
do this without in any degree repudiating his ordina- 
tion by Mr. Wesley, the matter is so plain that no 
amount of argument or illustration can simplify it. 
Ordination is not a sacrament, as the Romanists pre- 
tend. There is no formula laid down in the Script- 
ures, and there is no proof that any one specific form 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. STL 



was practiced in the early Church. The formal de- 
livery of the Bible to the recipient, in accordance with 
our present practice, is sufficient for all purposes. 

But there is a grave reflection that follows as a con- 
sequence that even the enemies of Dr. Coke should hes- 
itate to avow. If, as Dr. Beardsley asserts, Dr. Coke 
did not believe that he had any authority as a bishop 
in the Church of God, upon what principle, as an 
honest man, did he continue, for more than twenty 
years afterward, to ordain young men to the ministry 
of the word? Within five months of the time that 
this " doubt " of. the validity of his ordination is ex- 
pressed, according to Dr. Beardsley, Dr. Coke is found 
in the Channel Islands ordaining a French minister 
to be a deacon and a presbyter in the Church. How 
can this conduct be reconciled to truth and honesty? 
Shall we take the example of a quondam " successor of 
the apostles," a bishop of Dr. Beardsley's Church, 
who, doubting his title-deeds, examines, questions, de- 
bates, and argues with himself for years, while ever 
and anon ordaining candidates for the ministry? But 
did Bishop Ives lay his hands upon the head of 
a candidate after he made overtures to the Roman 
Catholic Church? If so, what censure is too heavy 
for him? 

But the author of the "Life of Seabnry" draws a 
character of Dr. Coke that every honest man must 
pronounce to be beneath contempt. Knowing the in- 
validity of his ordination, Coke recants publicly, but 
pursues his way nevertheless. Convinced that he is 
not a bishop, he performs for twenty years and more 
the duties of a bishop, assumes the responsibilities of 
a bishop, and dares the vengeance of Heaven and the 



372 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



judgment of men. Not only so, but such is the stu- 
pidity of the civilized world that, although this man 
has published his shame as far back as the year 1789, 
before the death of Wesley, no Wesleyan in Euglancl 
ever found it out, and no Methodist in America ever 
heard a word about it until the Be v. E. Edwards 
Beardsley published it in the year 1884! Does any 
sane man believe that the enemies of Methodism could 
be ignorant of such an event as the repudiation of his 
episcopal character by the first Methodist bishop ? Dr. 
Beardsley has drawn too heavily upon the bank of 
public credulity, and the ignoble charge will be re- 
pelled with the indignation that it deserves. 

\Dr. Coke evidently felt that he was merely a su- 
perintendent, and had no authority as a bishop," says 
Dr. Beardsley. Pray, what is a New Testament "su- 
perintendent" but a bishop ? Do not the lexicons de- 
fine the Greek verb e-tcrxo-im, episkopeo, to superin- 
tend? and is not e-t<r X o-oc, episkopos, a superintend- 
ent? It would seem to be needless to prove a propo- 
sition that every school-boy knows if he has read a 
chapter in the New Testament. But in this, as in 
many other things, there are wise men who do not 
scruple to take every advantage that presents itself. 
The English reader not versed in etymology must be 
told that the verb which means to oversee, to superintend 
in Greek is the word employed to express the exercise 
of the oflice of a bishop. His superintendency, or 
charge, is his —iay.o-r h or bishopric. 

But what is a hishop ? Every one who is acquainted 
with the forms of government prevailing in the vari- 
ous Churches of Christendom knows that the word 
"bishop" is employed to designate a variety of offi- 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers, 



373 



cers, differing not only among the different Churches, 
but in the same Church in many respects in different 
countries. The office of a bishop in the time of Thom- 
as a Becket was not the same thing that exists in the 
Church of England in our day. There were duties 
and functions that were performed by the bishop of a 
diocese in the fifteenth century that have long since 
ceased to exist. But it must be remembered that the 
theory of episcopacy, as held by the Church of Kome, 
is in irreconcilable conflict with the High-church doc- 
trine. At the same time the " apostolical secession- 
ist " must derive his line of succession from the Church 
of Borne. 

According to the Romanist, clerical orders form one 
of the seven sacraments in the Church. There are 
also seven grades or orders of ministers instead of 
three. It is a remarkable fact that "bishop" is not 
one of the seven orders of the Roman Catholic min- 
istry. There are four minor and three holy orders. 
Porter, reader, exorcist, acobyte, are the minor orders; 
sub-deacon, deacon, and priest, are the holy orders. 
The seventh and highest order in the Roman Catholic 
ministry — that of priest — has four grades: priest, bish- 
op, archbishop, and patriarch. Over these, supreme, 
and therefore having no "order," is the Pontiff, or 
Pope.* Thus it appears that the Church of Rome 
recognizes seven orders of the clergy, and excludes 
episcopacy from the dignity of a sacrament. Not 
only is this the case, but the famous Council of Trent, 
after days, months, and years spent in conference and 
debate, refused to declare that the episcopal office was 
established by divine right. The utmost exertions of 

* Catechism of the Council of Trent, pp. 216-222. 



374 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



the bishops failed to accomplish this purpose. They 
had a political as well as an ecclesiastical motive in 
striving to make the Council declare that episcopacy 
exists by divine right. - The episcopate/ 5 says Bun- 
gener, "is not reputed as an order, but as an office in 
the order. The bishop is no more a priest than is a 
mere parish priest; he is a priest charged with supe- 
rior functions/' * Nevertheless, a priest cannot con- 
firm, he cannot ordain, a layman to any one of the 
seven orders. But the peculiar functions of a bishop 
are not derived by succession from the order of bish- 
ops, but imparted as a gift from the sovereign lord of 
the Church, the Pope of Borne. All the bishops in 
the Roman Church cannot make a bishop without the 
authority of the Pope; and by his mere mandate any 
priest in Christendom becomes a bishop whether epis- 
copal hands are laid upon his head or not. 

It is important to observe this distinction. It suits 
the convenience of the popes to comply with the cus- 
tom of episcopal ordination in the bestowal of bish- 
oprics, but the compliance is of grace, and not of 
law or doctrine. In Protestant countries a rigid ad- 
herence to system and order has a tendency to soften 
the monarchical features of the papacy; but policy, 
not principle, is the motive for this compliance. TTe 
see in this fact the denial of the divine right of epis- 
copacy, the ground upon which the Romanists repu- 
diate the ministerial orders of the Church of En- 
gland. If the bishop is an officer by divine right, his 
powers, once possessed, are inalienable. The English 
prelates who were ordained under the sanction of the 
Pope, and afterward renounced allegiance to Borne, 
-Historv of the Council of Trent, p. 367. 



A Defense oj Our Methodist Fathers. 375 

upon the " divine right" theory were still valid bish- 
ops. Therefore, their consecration of Archbishop Par- 
ker made him a true bishop of the Church. From 
him, for the most part, episcopal orders, have descend- 
ed in the Church of England— not in "unbroken 
succession," according to the High-church view, by 
any means, but after the fashion of other ministerial 
successions. But, upon the Eoman theory, the mo- 
ment the reformed bishops abjured the Pope, they 
ceased, ipso facto, to be bishops at all, and could or- 
dain nobody, for communion with the "See" of Rome 
is essential to membership in the Christian Church. 
This is the ground upon which Dr. Milner, in his 
" End of Controversy," hands over the Church of En- 
gland to the same " uncovenanted mercies " to which 
American High-churchmen consign the greater part 
of the Christian world. Dr. Milner charges the Church 
of England with "having renounced Christ's commis- 
sion given to the apostles," and "hence it clearly ap- 
pears that there is and can be no apostolical succes- 
sion of ministry in the Established Church more than in 
any other congregations or societies of Protestants." w 
These blasts and counter-blasts of the trumpets of 
excommunication are altogether harmless, and some- 
times tbey are amusing. One of the books that Bish- 
op Wilberforce delights to quote in his " History of 
the Protestant Episcopal Church in America" is " Reed 
and Mattheson's Narrative." These two ministers 
were sent by the Congregatio'nalists of Great Britain to 
inspect and report upon the state of religion in Amer- 
ica. The two volumes published by them are made 
up of facts and fancies, as such books are apt to be. 
* Smyth: Apostolical Succession, p. 418. 



376 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



Whenever the Bishop of Oxford wished to give a 
thrust at the "revivals" in American Methodist cir- 
cles, he furnished a warmly indorsed quotation from 
his brother Britons. But none of his "History" of 
Episcopalianism in America is taken from that source. 
The following extract will give the reason: 

"Placed in temporal and civil advantages on a level 
with every other body," says Dr. Beed, the Protest- 
ant Episcopal Church " stands on the ground of the 
divine right of episcopal ordination and apostolic suc- 
cession. Now, it is certainly somewhat bold in the 
parent Church to denounce some eight thousand min- 
isters at least equal to her own in-pastoral ability and 
success, as in 'pretended holy orders'— that is, in a 
surreptitious use of the ministry; yet there is some- 
thing of pomp and privilege and numbers to uphold 
these pretensions. But really, for such lofty preten- 
sions to be insisted on by a Church so situated as is 
that in America, and at this time of day, is painfully 
ridiculous."* 

*Reed and Mattheson: Visit to the American Churches, vol. ii., p. 
75. These wholesome words were written in the year 1S34, at which 
time the Methodists of America exceeded six hundred and forty 
thousand, being one communicant for twenty-two persons of all ages 
in the population. At that time these gentlemen — Reed and Mat- 
theson — tell us that there were only three hundred and fifty thousand 
communicants in the Established Church of England; and this is 
"the real test of strength and influence," they tell us. If so, Amer- 
ican Methodism has outgrown the increase of the population ; for in 
1884, fifty years after Dr. Reed's calculation was made, there were 
in the United States over four millions of Methodist communicants, 
or one in thirteen of the population. As the Episcopalians had no 
reliable statistics fifty years ago, we cannot tell what their relative 
growth has been, but in 1884 they had only one communicant for 
one hundred and fifty-eight inhabitants in the United States. 



The Name Bishop Disliked by the European Reformers — Calvin — 
His Ambition — Presidents of Churches — Superintendents and 
Bishops the Same — Scotland and John Knox — Scotch Superin- 
tendents, Bishops — Hungarian Superintendents — Moravians and 
Bohemians — Waldenses — United Brethren in Christ — Denmark 
— Testimony of William Fulke — John and Charles Wesley. 

THE same state of affairs that made the name 
" bishop " an offense and a grievance to Mr. Wes- 
ley produced the form of government adopted by the 
Protestant Churches of France and Geneva. En- 
throned with the King, Romanism exercised her power 
in France through her bishops, and when the reformed 
State of Geneva became an ecclesiastical power, inde- 
pendent and influential, the revolt against episcopacy 
was decided and permanent. "It is no wonder that 
the people rejected episcopacy," says the biographer of 
Calvin, "as they shook off the fetters of popery in 
opposition to their bishops."* "The flight of her 
bishop," says the Rev. Edward Smedley, "prevented 
the continuance of episcopacy in the Church of Ge- 
neva, although it by no means appears that Calvin 
himself was an enemy to that institution, and it would 
be difficult to establish a necessary connection between 
his polity, from which it was excluded by compulsion, 
and later voluntary Presbyterianism." f It is known 
that John Calvin had received no ministerial orders of 



* Memoirs of Calvin, by John Mackenzie, p. 47. f History of the 
Reformed Religion in France, vol. i., p. 47. 

(377) 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



any kind by the laying on of hands, and, in default of 
a bishop turning Protestant, there was no possibility 
of obtaining "the succession" after the style of mod- 
ern High-churchmen. According to their theory, 
therefore, there was neither Church nor ministry in 
Geneva nor in France among the Huguenots. 

" That Calvin was influenced in part by ambition it 
would be idle to deny," says Mr. Smedley,- " for what 
man ever produced great effects upon his species if 
wholly devoid of that passion?— a passion, when puri- 
fied and defecated, amongst the noblest ingrafted on 
oar nature. And Calvin's ambition was thus sublimed. 
The work which he took in hand was not his own work, 
but that of his Master. In order to perform it to the 
utmost an extraordinary measure of power was neces- 
sary, and he therefore omitted no effort to obtain, no 
vigilance to preserve, his supremacy. That he did not 
mistrust his own use of that power can never be a mat- 
ter of surprise. That he saw its danger if transmitted 
to others, is evident from his not having recommended 
a successor, and from Beza's immediate advice after 
his friend's death that the office of president should 
be allowed to expire with him. The infallibility, in 
all but name, which he maintained while alive, was too 
precious and too perilous a legacy to be bequeathed to 
a successor."* 

Now what was this office of "president" that died 
with John Calvin? Wherein did it differ from the 
extraordinary relation sustained by Mr. Wesley to the 
Methodist Societies of Great Britain for more than 
half a century? It happened that John Wesley 
had received in the regular way whatever of min- 

* History of the Eeformed Keligion in France, vol. i., p. 46. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 379 



isterial authority the laying on of hands could give. 
In this respect he was in a better condition to observe 
and to preserve Church order and regularity. But 
neither of these great men received his appointment 
or consecration for the great work of his life-time from 
man or by man. "No man taketh this honor unto 
himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." 
And who is he that will dispute the divine calling of 
these men ? Calvin's authority was supreme. So was 
Mr. Wesley's; but their methods and aims were not 
precisely similar. Calvin labored to bring back the 
age from the corruptions of Eomanism to the simplic- 
ity and purity of Scripture doctrines and morality. 
Wesley labored to bring men to Christ that he might 
cast out the evil spirits of human pride and transgres- 
sion, and regenerate society by the breath of the Spirit 
of God. 

Before the death of Calvin the Protestants of Scot- 
land, under the leadership of John Knox, had formed 
a plan of Church government, in which the episcopal 
duties mentioned in the New Testament were com- 
mitted to officers styled superintendents. "In the 
original sketch of the Scottish Church Discipline," 
says Sir Walter Scott, "provision was made for cer- 
tain persons named superintendents, who were in- 
trusted, as their name implies, with the spiritual power 
of bishops."* The number and duties of these super- 
intendents we learn from one of the biographers of 
John Knox: "Instead of fixing all the ministers in 
particular charges, it was judged proper, after sup- 
plying the principal towns, to assign to the rest the 
superintendence of a large district, over which they 
* History of Scotland, vol. ii., p. 70. 



380 



The Higli-ch urchman Disarmed: 



were appointed regularly to itinerate, for the purpose 
of preaching, planting churches, and inspecting the 
conduct of ministers, extorters, and readers. These 
were called superintendents. The number originally 
proposed was ten, but owing to the scarcity of proper 
persons, or rather the want of necessary funds there 
were never more than six appointed. . . The 'super 
mtendent met with the ministers and delegated elders 
of his district twice a year, in the provincial synod, 
which took cognizance of ecclesiastical affairs within 
its bounds."* 

The Methodist reader will be impressed with the 
ana ogy existing between this office of superintendent 
m the Scotch Church three centuries ago and the of 
fice of a bishop in the Methodist Episcopal Church at 
the present day. The likeness is stronger and more ev- 
ident than that between the bishops of the Church of 
England and of the Protestant Episcopal Church. But 
we are informed, moreover, concerning the election 
and ordination of these superintendents. One of 
the oldest historians of Scotland, Raphael Holins- 
head, tells us that on the 9th of March, 1561, an elec- 
tion of superintendent was held at Edinburgh, at which 
John Knox presided. After a sermon denning the 
duties of the office, Knox announced that Mr. John 
Spotswood had been nominated. "After this was 
called the said Mr. John Spotswood," says Holins- 
head, "who, answering to his name, the minister de- 
manded if any man knew any crimes or offenses of the 
said Spotswood that might disable him to be called to 

*McCrie' S Life of John Knox, p. 160; Scott of Cupar: State of 
the Kirk of Scotland, pp. 32, 34; Neal's History of the Puritans 
vol. i., p. 40. ' 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 381 

that office, which thing thrice demanded there was 
after question moved to the whole multitude, if there 
were any other whom they would put in election with 
the said Mr. Spotswood. Then the people were asked 
whether (if they admitted the said Spotswood for their 
superintendent) they would honor and obey him as 
Christ's minister in every thing pertaining to his 
charge. 

f: Whereunto the people answered that they would, 
which thus granted there were further questions and 
matters touching the articles of the Apostles' Creed, 
and concerning the state of religion, propounded to the 
superintendent intended to be created. Whereunto, 
when he had answered affirmatively, the people were 
again demanded for his allowance, which they easily 
granted with the consent of the nobility. These things 
thus performed, and a certain prayer, to obtain the 
Spirit of God to be poured into this new elect vessel, 
finished, the rest of the ministers, if there be any, and 
elders of the Church present, in sign of their full con- 
sent, shall take the elected by the hand. And so the 
chief minister, giving an especial benediction, the form 
whereof is there set down, with the exhortation which 
they must also use to the elected, this election is 
wholly finished (without any imposition of hands on 
his head), and he sufficiently created superintendent 
minister."* 

The style of this writer is a little obscure in the 
closing paragraph, owing to the fact that he is com- 
bining a particular event with the form provided for 
the use of those elected to the office. The account is 



* Holinshead's Scottish Chronicles, vol. ii., p. 311; Hethering- 
ton: History of the Church of Scotland, p. 11. 



382 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



interesting, however, as it gives us a clear view of 
Knox's understanding of the word ordain in the New 
Testament. An election by the people, with or with- 
out the imposition of hands, is a valid ordination in 
the judgment of the Scotch reformers, and in this 
they are sustained by the voice of Christian antiquity 
in the centuries nearest to the time of the apostles. 

Nennius, a writer of the eighth century, concludes 
his "History of the Britons" with the record of the 
year 642. Archbishop Usher, in his "Discourse of 
the Eeligion of the Irish and British," quotes this 
author, and credits many of his statements concerning 
the life of St. Patrick in Ireland. The miracles ex- 
cepted, the details given by Nennius throw some light 
upon the question of the Irish episcopacy in the fifth 
century. "St. Patrick taught the gospel in foreign 
nations for the space of forty years," says Nennius. 
"He taught the servants of God, and he wrote three 
hundred and sixty-five canonical and other books re- 
lating to the Catholic faith. He founded as many 
churches, and consecrated the same number of bish- 
ops, strengthening them with the Holy Ghost. He 
ordained three thousand presbyters, and converted 
and baptized twelve thousand persons in the province 
of Connaught." * 

According to this writer there were as many bish- 
ops as there were churches in Ireland, a statement 
that overthrows the theory of diocesan episcopacy. 
"What kind of bishops these were," says Mr. Hether- 
ington, "is sufficiently apparent from the fact that 
there was one for each church, and also from the num- 
ber of elders — about eight to each bishop. It was, in 
* Nennius: History of the Britons, \ 54. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 383 



short, manifestly the same institution which ultimately 
became the Presbyterian Church of Scotland — a par- 
ish minister, with his session of elders, in each church 
and parish that had received the gospel." * 

A few years earlier than the constitution of the 
Scotch Church, we find the Hungarians organizing 
themselves into a religious body, which was the legit- 
imate successor of the Protestant Church to which 
John Huss belonged. These were connected with the 
famous Waldenses or Vaudois, who sprung from the 
Patareni or Cathari, of Italy,- an evangelical sect whose 
origin is lost in the early history of the Christian 
Church. In the year 1550, "an ecclesiastical confer- 
ence was held in the village of Forna," says the histo- 
rian of the Hungarian Church, "limiting and defining 
the duties of the bishop or superintendent at ecclesiastical 
visitations. " f In the constitution of this Church the 
same reason prevailed against calling episcopal offi- 
cers by the name of bishops that existed in England 
in the time of Mr. Wesley, and exists there at this day. 
The title was preempted, so to speak, belonging to officers 
of the State, and however great the difference between 
a scriptural bishop and the dignitary bearing that 
name in the Roman Catholic or the English Church, 
it was manifestly improper to apply it to the officers 
of a dissenting Society; therefore, the scriptural bish- 
op was called a superintendent, as Mr. Wesley and John 
Knox preferred to call him. At a later period in Hun- 
gary we find the Protestant territory divided into 
three dioceses, and a superintendent elected for each. 
In case of the death of a superintendent the vacancy 

* Hetherington : History of the Church of Scotland, p. 11. f His- 
tory of the Protestant Church in Hungary, p, 82. 



384 



The High-clnirchman Disarmed: 



was filled by election.* It is to be noted that all of 
the spiritual duties consistent with the Protestant 
faith, and usually assigned to the episcopal office, 
were performed by the Hungarian superintendents. 
They were the judges of the ecclesiastical law, and 
formed the court of final resort. They had oversight 
of pastors and people, ordained the ministers, and su- 
perintended the temporal affairs of the Church. Near 
the commencement of the last century they began to 
be styled " Excellentissimus," a title which provoked 
the jealousy of the Eomanists, and it was made the 
excuse of a furious persecution, which ultimately threat- 
ened the extinction of the Protestants. At one time it 
is estimated that there were three millions of Protest- 
ants in Hungary, Lutherans and Reformed, each sect 
having bishops under the title of superintendents. 

Connected with these Protestants of Hungary were 
the Moravians and Bohemians, from whom sprung the 
celebrated community at Herrnhut. Count Zinzen- 
dorf was elected general overseer, and David Nitsch- 
mann was ordained a bishop by Jablonski, the venera- 
ble superintendent of the Bohemian Church. By the 
order of Frederick William, King of Prussia, Count 
Zinzendorf was ordained a bishop in 1737 by Jablon- 
ski. ' The service was performed privately in Jablon- 
ski's house by that prelate and Bishop Nitschmann, 
with the written concurrence of Bishop Sitkovius, of 
Poland."! Zinzendorf visited America, and the Mo- 
ravians established many missionary stations here, 
some of which are still in existence. But the episco- 
pal orders of the Churches of Hungary, Bohemia, Mo- 

* History of the Protestant Church in Hungary, p. 147. f Bibli- 
otheca Sacra, vol. Hi., p. 572, 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 385 



ravia, and Poland are all derived from the Waldenses. 
These Protestants of the valleys are now, and have 
ever been, under a Presbyterian form of government. 
"There is nothing in the organization or action of 
these Churches that in the slightest degree savors of 
prelacy." * Mr. Faber, a minister of the Church of 
England, in his "Inquiry into the History and Theol- 
ogy of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses," says: 
" I readily confess that I am not able to demonstrate 
the circumstance of their possessing an apostolical 
succession, either as regularly transmitted by the 
episcopal ordination, or as less regularly handed 
down by the simple imposition of the hands by the 
presbytery." "It may, perhaps, endanger the whole 
system of apostolical succession," says Mr. Faber, "if 
we too rigidly insist upon the absolute necessity of a 
transmission through the medium of bishops only."f 
There is scarcely any fact in mediaeval Church his- 
tory that is more certainly proved than the fact that 
the Waldenses or Albigenses did not preserve the 
"episcopal succession." In the annals of Koger de 
Hoveden we have no less than thirty-five pages devoted 
to the "heresy" of these Albigenses. Cardinal Peter 
visited them in the valley of Toulouse in the year 
1176, and, after hearing them in the statement of their 
faith and practice, condemned them as heretics doomed 
to destruction. In the explication of their faith they 
declared that they acknowledged only such bishops 
and pastors as the New Testament authorized. But 
no such officer as "bishop" was named among them.ij: 
From one of these Waldensian superintendents in a 

*Baird's Protestantism in Italy, p, 389. j Ibid., p. 390, note. 
JEoger de Hoveden: Annals, vol. i., pp. 423-437; 471-491. 



386 



subsequent age the Moravian Bishop Comenius re- 
ceived ordination, after the dispersion of the Protest- 
ants in Bohemia; so that, as the Bohemian "line" 
Avas replaced by the Waldenses, and these had pres- 
byterial ordination only, the orders of Bishop Ja- 
blonski were presbyterial in their character. 

The question of Jablonski's episcopal orders was 
examined by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1729, 
and he "expressed himself fully satisfied."* This 
may have been the case without any committal upon 
the part of the Archbishop. It is beyond doubt that 
the Moravians themselves have placed no confidence 
in the claim to prelatical succession, and the venerable 
Otterbein, who assisted at the ordination of Bishop 
Asbury, became the founder of a Church in which 
there are "superintendents" or bishops after the New 
Testament pattern. 

"The Church of the United Brethren in Christ" in 
this country was regularly organized in the year 1800, 
although there were many German pastors and teach- 
ers in communion with the Lutheran Church, and 
some independent of it for many years before. The 
evangelical portion of the preachers and members of 
these German Churches united in one body, and elected 
Philip William Otterbein and Martin Boehm super- 
intendents or bishops in 1800, and the denomination 
has maintained a career of great usefulness and pros- 
perity.! Their bishops are elected once in four years, 
and, if not reelected, retire from office. They do not 
retain the ceremony of " laying on of hands " in the 
case of a superintendent or bishop; or, to use their 
form of expression, "in case one elder is elected a su- 
* Memoirs of James Hutton, p. 16. f Life of Otterbein, p. 278. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 387 



perintendent, lie need not be reordained, a second or- 
dination being without scriptural warrant." * 

"It has of late years been ascertained," says Dean 
Hook, " that, while episcopal succession has certainly 
been preserved in Sweden, it has been lost in the 
Church of Denmark, where the episcopacy is only 
nominal." f Thus the confession is made that the 
prelatists of the United States made a narrow escape 
in not accepting the offer of the Danes to ordain min- 
isters for America. Now it is certain that bishops 
are styled superintendents in Sweden as well as in 
Denmark. Speaking of the religion of Sweden, the 
English embassador resident there in 1688 says: " Un- 
der them ( two archbishops) are seven or eight super- 
intendents, who have all the power of bishops, and 
only want the name." J Whatever may be the state 
of affairs in Sweden at this time, two hundred years 
ago the bishops were called superintendents ; and this 
was done in a State Church that had no reason what- 
ever to avoid the use of the term "bishop." There 
can be but one reason for this usage, and that is the 
words were equivalent. 

Among the many learned and eloquent works called 
forth in defense of the Reformation in England in 
the sixteenth century, none excels the treatise of Will- 
iam Fulke, "A defense of the sincere and true trans- 
lations of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue 
against the manifold cavils, frivolous quarrels, and 
impudent slanders of Gregory Martin, one of the read- 
ers of popish divinity in the traitorous seminary of 

* History of the United Brethren in Christ, vol. ii., p. 15S. 
t Preface to Early Years of Bishop Hobart, p. 12. i Sweden in 
1688, p. 227. 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



Bheims." This book was printed in 1583, and the 
author labored under the difficulty of defending trans- 
lations that were far inferior to that of 1611. He had, 
moreover to argue with a man who was thoroughly 
furnished with all the resources of the Roman Cath- 
olic Church. The book is a treasury of wit and learn- 
ing, the Romanist paragraph being printed verbatim, 
with all references, and the Protestant reply follows 
on the same page. Gregory Martin spares no pains, 
and refuses no implement of warfare, good, bad, or 
indifferent, if it does but serve his purpose. In one of 
these assaults upon his adversary he says: "Will you 
always follow fancy and not reason, do what you list, 
translate as you list, and not as the truth is, and that 
in the Holy Scriptures, which you boast and vaunt so 
much of? Because yourselves have them you call 
bishops-, the name 'bishops ' is in your English Bibles, 
which otherwise, by your own rule of translation,' 
should be called an 'overseer' or 'superintendent,'"* 
In reply to one of these arguments of the Romanist, 
Fulke says: "Of all other importune and unreason- 
able judges you are one of the worst, that would en- 
force us to translate the Scriptures, which you confess 
observeth not the distinction of bishops and priests 
(presbyters), according to the fathers, which do almost 
always observe it. If we should translate those sen- 
tences of St. Augustine, we might use the word 
' priest' for presbyter, and 'priesthood ' tor presbyter him; 
and if we use the words 'elder' and 'eldership,' what 
offense, I pray you, were it, when by these names we 
understand nothing but the same function and minis- 
tgrwhi ch Augustine d ^tli?^hj ^7/g^?/.9, a ' bishop,' 

* Fulke's Defense, p. 254. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 389 



was of very old time used to signify a degree ecclesi- 
astical higher than presbyter, an ' elder' or 'priest,' we 
did never deny; we know it right well. We know what 
St. J erome writeth upon the Epistle to Titns, chapter 
one: Idem est ergo presbyter, qui episeopus. 'The same 
man is presbyter, or an ''elder" or "priest," which is 
episeopus, a bishop. And before that, by the instinct 
of the devil, factions were made in religion, and it was 
said among the people, "I am of Paul, I of Apollos, 
and I of Cephas," the churches were governed by 
common counsel presbyterorum "of the elders." But 
afterward, when every one thought those whom he 
had baptized to be his own, and not Christ's, it was 
decreed in the whole world that one de presbyteris, "of 
the elders," being elected, should be set over the rest, 
to whom all the care of the Church should pertain^ 
and the seeds of schisms should be taken away.' " * 

Let the reader examine these words closely, and he 
will see the origin of Methodist episcopacy. Dr. Coke 
was an elder. Mr. Wesley was an elder. In their 
order, or ministerial character, they were equal. Mr. 
Wesley selected Dr. Coke, and, as far as he had a 
right to ordain an officer for any Church, he ordained 
him superintendent or bishop of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church. The purpose was to organize a relig- 
ious people into one body and under one form of gov- 
ernment. Dr. White, of Pennsylvania, had no juris- 
diction over them and no connection with them. Nei- 
ther had Dr. Seabury. Mr. Wesley was their spirit- 
ual father. To him, as far as they could owe their re- 
ligious experience to any human being, they owed 
their religious privileges and estates. As Mr. Wesley 



" Fulke's Defense, p. 265. 



390 The High-churchman Disarmed: 

was the 'overseer,' the superintendent of all the Ar- 
minian Methodists in Europe and America, he had 
the right to recognize a superintendent chosen by the 
American Methodists for the episcopal office. Which 
of the two, the spiritual "father" or the sons in the 
gospel, should make the choice in the first instance 
was immaterial. For the purposes of organization it 
was, perhaps, inevitable that Mr. Wesley should choose 
the agent and that the body organizing should approve 
of the choice. 

To his brother Charles, in 1780, Mr. Wesley wrote: 
"Read Bishop Stillingfleet's Irenicon, or any impar- 
tial history of the ancient Church, and I believe you 
will think as I do. I verily believe I have as good a right 
to ordain as to administer the Lord's Supper When 
we supplement these words by the historical fact that, 
in the Churches of France, Geneva, Italy, Germany, 
Hungary, Bohemia, Moravia, Denmark, Sweden, and 
Scotland — in other words, in nine-tenths of the Prot- 
estant world — ministerial orders have been presbyte- 
rial in their origin, and in those in which episcopacy 
has existed . it began by presbyters selecting and or- 
daining presbyters to the episcopal office, the con- 
duct of Mr. Wesley is fully vindicated by the Script- 
ures and the voice of ecclesiastical history. 



Dr. White's Intended Visit to Mr. Wesley— Did Mr. Wesley Decline 
to See Him?— Ignorance of his Character— No Hasty Action and 
No Stubborn Perseverance— The Letter— "The Plan"— Mr. Wes- 
ley's Side of the Case— The Sunday of the Consecration— The Au- 
thor of the " Blue Laws of Connecticut"— Seeks to Become a Bish- 
op—A Canon Adopted on his Account— Variety of Charges Against 
Dr. Coke. 

THE account which Dr. White gives of his intend- 
ed visit to Mr. Wesley in 1787 is designed to 
produce the impression that Mr. Wesley had acted 
hastily in ordaining Dr. Coke, but was too proud or 
too headstrong to acknowledge his error. Intending 
to adhere to his course, right or wrong, he refused to 
converse with any one concerning it; and especially 
with an American he desired to have no interview. 
This is the construction which the reader will be apt 
to place upon the following statement: 

"Perhaps it may not be foreign to the present sub- 
ject to take notice," says Dr. White, "that the author, 
when in England, entertained a desire of seeing the 
late Mr. John Wesley, with the view of stating to him 
some circumstances of which he might be uninformed 
in reference to the design, then lately adopted, of with- 
drawing the Methodist Societies in America from the 
communion of the Episcopal Church. Under this 
idea, there was obtained a letter to him from the Kev. 
Mr. Pilmoor, which the author left at the house of 
Mr Wesley when he was from home: but no notice 

(391) 



392 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



was taken of it. Before the author's departure, in- 
tending to go on a certain day into the city, he sent 
to that gentleman a letter by the penny-post, express- 
ing that he would on the same day stop at his house 
if convenient to him. An answer was received, and 
is still m possession, the purport of which is that Mr 
Wesley was then engaged in a periodical duty of an 
examination of his Society, but that in the case of a 
stay of a week or two he would derive pleasure from 
the interview proposed. As the stay was only ten 
days after and the latter part of the time was taken 
up by the business of the consecration and in return- 
ing visits, there was no renewal of the proposal of an 
interview, especially as doubts were entertained of 
the delicacy of doing so, the resting of an hour's con- 
versation on the event of a stay of a fortnight longer 
having very much the appearance of a declining of 
the visit. This may have arisen from the supposition 
that the object was to impugn a measure hastily adopt- 
ed by Mr. Wesley, and not intended to be relin- 
quished."* 

Dr. White shows in this instance, as in many others, 
his lack of information concerning the character of 
Mr. Wesley. Indirection is one quality of human 
nature which he never exhibited, because he did not 
possess it. He who did not fear the face of man 
would have found the plainest and clearest words in 
the language to tell Dr. White that he had no desire 
to listen to his budget of American news. But the 
candidate for episcopal ordination had been in En- 
land since the 20th of November. Why should he, 
after the lapse of nine we eks^ become suddenly a man 

* Memoirs, p. 190. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 393 



of haste, that must be seen then or never ? If we did 
not know that Dr. White's success hang upon a thread 
up to the time mentioned here, we might suppose that 
he had fixed the day of his departure. Bat the fact 
is, that on the day the note was written to Dr. White 
not one official document had been issued to authorize 
his ordination by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Mr. 
W r esley wrote on the 24th, and the next day (the 25th 
of January) the license was issued. 

John Wesley knew that William White was no 
friend of the Methodists in the United States. He 
had given them no helping hand in the time of their 
poverty and distress. The man that looked in his 
youth with an evil eye upon the preaching of White- 
field had no predilection for the gifts of Asbury or 
his itinerant preachers. The increase of Methodists 
in Philadelphia caused the communion-table of Dr. 
White's Church to be visited by members that other- 
wise would not have known the interior of Christ's 
Church or St. Paul's. For this reason, the Episco- 
pal pastor lamented the organization of a Methodist 
Church. But what right had he to complain? The 
shepherd that has no sympathy with the religious life 
of his flock cannot be surprised if they forsake him 
to follow those by whose hands they have been fed. 
Many, the great majority, of those who in the early 
days of Methodism in America went to the Episcopal 
churches to receive the Lord's Supper would have 
been found there under no other circumstances. 
There was not a particle of sympathy between the 
masses of the people and the Episcopal pastors. 

But it seems to be an extraordinary spirit of pre- 
sumption that induced Dr. White to believe that Mr. 



394 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



Wesley did not wish to see him because the plan "has- 
tily adopted" "was not intended to be relinquished." 
The inference that Mr. Wesley might have "relin- 
quished" the plan for the organization of a Church 
that had nearly doubled its members since its adop- 
tion, two years previously, is a remarkable specimen 
of egotism. From fifteen thousand members, in 
twenty-eight months the American Methodist Church 
had grown to twenty-five thousand, when Dr. White 
proposed to negotiate for an interview with Mr. Wes- 
ley, which interview, it is avowed, was intended to in- 
duce him to repudiate "the plan." 

But let us see what Mr. Wesley did. To the "Fac- 
similes of Church Documents" we are indebted for 
the text of Mr. Wesley's letter to Dr. White. It is as 
follows : 

Reverend Sir: I am just now furnished with a line from you, which 
I answer immediately, I am sorry that I am engaged to set out for 
Dorking early to-morrow morning. I would have waited on you 
myself on Saturday or on Monday, but that it is the time appointed 
for examining our Society, which finds me full employment from 
morning to night. If you stay a week or two longer in town, to 
have an hour's conversation with you will be a great pleasure to, 
reverend sir, your obedient brother and servant, 

City Road, Jan. 24, 1787. Johx Wesley. 

This letter is certainly open, in one respect, to the 
construction which Dr. White puts upon it. It is 
possible to regard it as a polite intimation that Mr. 
Wesley did not wish to see him. As nine weeks had 
elapsed since his arrival in England, it is probable 
that Mr. Wesley had intelligence from America as 
late as any in Dr. White's possession. That there 
should be such a long delay in the matter was cer- 
tainly not favorable to urgency, and Mr. Wesley's 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 395 



time was precious. But to those who know him only 
through his writings it is scarcely possible to believe 
that John Wesley would have dismissed Dr. White 
with a diplomatic excuse or proposal for an imprac- 
ticable interview. Dr. White knew nothing of the 
"examinations" of the Societies, of course, and to him 
the phrase meant nothing; but to Methodists of later 
days the term suggests a weary heart work that would 
not have been lessened by complaints from a far coun- 
try. Nevertheless, it is not probable, to say the least, 
that Mr. Wesley intended to refuse an interview, and 
least of all for the reasons assigned by Dr. White. 

The "plan" was not adopted hastily. Four years 
before its adoption, Mr. Wesley wrote to his brother 
Charles: " I verily believe I have as good a right to 
ordain as to administer the Lord's Supper." This 
was in June, 1780. A few weeks afterward he re- 
ceived a request from America to exercise this power. 
He pondered the "plan" for more than four years, 
yet Dr. White says it was hastily adopted. The move- 
ments of his grace of Canterbury must have suggest- 
ed Dr. White's ideas of "haste." 

After waiting more than ten weeks, Dr. White was 
ordained on the 4th of February, 1787, and the next 
day, February 5th, he left London. But he did not 
sail from Falmouth before the end of the month. 
What was he doing all this while ? The three weeks 
spent in England after the ordination, or thirty-one 
days after Mr. Wesley's note was written, did certain- 
ly afford a fair opportunity to hold the desired inter- 
view. At all events, he might have informed Mr. 
Wesley that he would be at home at a given time, 
and by this means decide the question. 



396 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



Now let us see Mr. Wesley's side of the case. In 
his Journal, under date of Jan. 25, 1787, he says: "I 
went to Dorking, and found a lively and well-estab- 
lished people." This was the visit he mentioned on 
the day before (Wednesday, Jan. 24) in his note to 
Dr. White. Under date of Saturday, 27, he says: "I 
began the heavy work of meeting the classes in Lon- 
don." Of this work he had notified Dr. White, but 
as the American clergyman had not the slightest idea 
of Mr. Wesley's meaning, we can only pardon his 
want of information. After Monday, it seems, and 
within the one week which was the alternative time 
mentioned by Mr. Wesley, the venerable man had 
leisure to hear the reports, now three months old, 
from America. But Dr. White was too busily en- 
gaged, we may suppose, in proving to the Archbishop 
of Canterbury that five clergymen in Pennsylvania 
were better than ten in Connecticut; for so it was. 
Dr. White received three clerical votes for bishop, that 
number of clergymen being present, and the assent 
of the two others who were not at the place of meet- 
ing.* How many laymen were there we know not; 
but it must have appeared to the Archbishop of Can- 
terbury as a small affair. After centuries of cultiva- 
tion, in the midst of a population of a third of a mill- 
ion, to be chosen a bishop of five clergymen and a 
dozen small, undefined, and nondescript parishes! 
Dr. White deserved a better fate than this, for among 
his brethren at that time he had no peer in many re- 
spects. But alas the day of small things! Sixty- 
three ministers and fifteen thousand people had voted 
for Francis Asbury — the people through their minis- 
* Life of Dr. White, p. 116. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 397 



ters. And yet the gentleman who represents five 
clergymen, a runaway Methodist preacher among 
them, must needs suppose that John Wesley was 
afraid to meet him in discussing the affairs of Ameri- 
can Methodists! 

The Sunday that Dr. White received the gift of 
" the succession " at Lambeth Chapel, Mr. Wesley 
preached as usual, and he records the event as fol- 
lows: "Sun., 4. While I applied the parable of the 
sower at the new chapel, God was with us of a truth. 
The stout-hearted trembled, as they did likewise in 
the evening, while I applied ' Many are called, but few 
chosen.' " While many seek for signs and omens, 
may it not appear significant that Methodism should 
be represented by a gracious revival at the new chap- 
el, City Road, while a variety of ceremonial perform- 
ances were in progress at Lambeth? When names, 
titles, genuflections, "albs," " stoles," and ecclesiastical 
millinery shall absorb our thoughts, and become the 
one attracting magnet in the visible Church, it may be 
written over our doors as of others, "Ichabod" — the 
glory has departed from Israel. 

Among the divertissements which the pages of Dr. 
White's "Memoirs" furnish us, is one that is connect- 
ed with a notorious character — no less a personage 
than the author of the world-renowned "Blue Laws 
of Connecticut." 

The Eev. Samuel Peters was one of the " mission- 
aries" of the "Society for the Propagation of the 
Gospel in Foreign Parts." He was a Tory, of course, 
and at the beginning of the war got into trouble with 
the Sons of Liberty. Those patriotic "Sons" could 
not suffer such men as Seabury, of Westchester, and 



398 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



Peters, of Hebron, Conn, to affront the republican 
sentiment by bitter and imprudent advocacy of the 
royal cause. Mr. Seabury, as we have already seen 
took refuge in the King's army, became a chaplain! 
and drew his half-pay as late as 1789, five years after 
he had become an Episcopal bishop. 

Mr. Peters did not fare so well. He did his best, 
however, and ran away to England. He was no soon- 
er there than he wrote a book that is but little read, 
and yet the slanders contained in it have enjoyed a 
world-wide celebrity. The book was called a "His- 
tory of Connecticut," and is noticed in the Annual 
Eegister of the year 1781 as follows: 

" The 'History of Connecticut ' is written in a lively 
and entertaining, though in a very desultory, manner 
It is not destitute of information, and some of ihe 
facts and circumstances relative to the States, govern- 
ment, manners, and natural productions of the coun- 
try, are deserving of attention. But the work would 
be far more worthy of praise if it were not evidently 
dictated by a most violent party spirit, This is so fla- 
grant that it must greatly diminish its credit. We 
know not in what respects we can believe a nameless 
writer, who cites no authorities, and who is clearly in- 
fluenced by some personal resentment. In reality his 
performance has so much of the nature of a party 
tract that it does not merit the honorable title of a 
history." * 

Dr. Beardsley's notice of Mr. Peters is brief, and 
is chiefly remarkable for its moderation: "He retali- 
ated upon his countrymen with his pen; but his writ- 
ings would have been received with more respect had 

^Annual Register, 1781, p. 225. 



A Defense of Oar Methodist Fathers. 399 



lie restrained his rashness and never embellished 
them with ludicrous and apocryphal statements."* 
These "ludicrous and apocryphal statements" are the 
particular subjects of quotation among foreigners, 
some of whom we must credit for an intention to 
tell the truth about the Americans. As an example, 
the Bishop of Oxford, in his "History of the Prot- 
estant Episcopal Church in America," makes frequent 
reference to the work of Mr. Peters. He gives a pre- 
tended account of a digest of laws called the "Blue 
Code;" "so named," says Bishop Wilberforce, "ac- 
cording to probable conjecture, by the inhabitants of 
the neighboring settlements from its being written, 
as it were, in blood." In this "Blue Code" are nu- 
merous statutes applying to all the details of life and 
manners. Bishop Wilberforce quotes several of these; 
such as, " No one shall run on the -Sabbath-day, or 
walk in his garden or elsewhere, except reverently to 
and from meeting; which makes it criminal in a moth- 
er to kiss her infant on the Sabbath-day; which strict- 
ly forbids the reading of the common prayer, keeping 
Christmas-day or Saint' s-day, making mince-pies, or 
playing on any instrument of music except the drum, 
the trumpet, and the Jew's-harp." f 

That such a man as the Bishop of Oxford should 
read Peters's " Blue Laws " and believe them to be 
historical is not surprising, for there is a tradition 
that one of his predecessors, after reading " Gulliver's 
Travels," expressed himself as greatly pleased with 
the book, but said he had found some things there 
which he could not believe. Perhaps it would not 

* History of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut, vol. i., p. 307. 
f History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America, p. 76. 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



have given more pain to Mr. Peters than it would 
have given to Dean Swift if he had been told that 
there were some incredible things in his book. Mr. 
Peters forged a code of laws, and did it for the pur- 
pose of bringing the people of his native country into 
derision. Never was a phenomenal liar more success- 
ful in creating a party that believed every word of his 
story. The " long-bow " has been drawn at a venture 
by many a skilled foreigner, but no man ever equaled 
Peters in the art of creating monumental falsehoods 
and making people believe them. To this day the 
" Blue Laws of Connecticut " are quoted, and the ab- 
surdity of the Puritan law-makers has pointed many 
a moral and adorned many a tale. The author of " The 
True Blue Laws of Connecticut and New Haven" 
has given a few names of the authors who were de- 
ceived by the forgery of Peters. The list could be 
multiplied many times over.* 

It is indeed one of the most remarkable events in 
literary history. Macpherson's "Ossian," and Ire- 
land's "Shakespeare," and Chatterton's "Kowley," all 
had their day, but it was a brief one; and no man of 
moderate information could be deceived by any pre- 
tended discovery or by an invention similar to this 
" Blue Code." But here we have a work, the offspring 
of a man without conscience or character, and for a 
hundred years after the forgery is committed, we find 
men who pass for men of intelligence and learning 
who are so profoundly ignorant of the truth that they 
quote Peters's "Blue Laws" as the genuine produc- 
tion of Puritanic folly. 

And this man Samuel Pe ters, "Kev." Samuel Peters, 
Trumbull: The True Blue Laws of Connecticut, p. 35. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



401 



the forger of a code of laws which libeled his State 
and people, became a candidate for the episcopal office 
in the State of Vermont! The thing appears almost 
as incredible as his pretended "history." It is true, 
nevertheless, and the application of " Kev." Samuel 
Peters for consecration as Bishop of " Yerdmont" was 
the occasion of framing a canon for the Protestant 
Episcopal Church. This "Kev. Dr." Samuel Peters 
applied to the Archbishop of Canterbury for conse- 
cration. He had the votes of "all the Presbyterians, 
Methodists, and Puritans in the State of Verdmont 
calling him to be their bishop." But it seems, from 
the exceedingly stately language of Dr. White,* that 
there was no clergyman of the Episcopalian faith in 
the State until the Rev. John Cosins Ogden was sent 
there by "Dr." Peters to form a "convention." The 
convention was organized, Mr. Peters thinking, doubt- 
less, that if three would do for a large State like Penn- 
sylvania one would suffice for a little diocese like Ver- 
mont. So the "convention" appeared in due form. 
But his grace of Canterbury would not send any more 
links of the chain of succession to America. 

Mr. Peters applied to the Convention of the Prot- 
estant Episcopal Church, and they declined to grant 
his request. " It was this transaction," says Dr. White, 
" which produced an addition to one of the canons re- 
quiring that to entitle the Church in any State to a 
resident bishop there shall be at least six presbyters 
residing and officiating therein." f 

There are many accusations against Dr. Coke, but 
none of them reflect upon his moral character. Even 
the vindictive spirit of Dr. Whitehead could allege 
-Memoirs, p. 203. f Ibid., p. 204. 

26 



402 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



only prejudice and personal ambition as serious faults 
in his character. That Dr. Coke has been misrepre- 
sented by Dr. Whitehead, in his " Life of Wesley," 
there is no doubt whatever ; and we have seen some of 
his charges refuted by the best of testimony. 

It is not so easy to repel the charge of excessive 
ambition. It will depend very much upon the read- 
er's habits of thought, and somewhat upon his natural 
temperament, whether he will be able to exonerate Dr. 
Coke from this charge after all the testimony has been 
examined. If he was ambitious, it was to do good. 
He aspired to high and responsible trusts, but they 
were not attended with worldly power, nor great 
emoluments, nor human ease, nor yet with worldly 
honor. 

1. He expected to become the first president of the 
English and Irish Conferences after Mr. Wesley's 
death. Perhaps no man was better qualified for the 
post. He was more intimate with Mr. Wesley than 
was any other man of equal talents. He knew the 
plans, understood the methods, and more fully shared 
the spirit of untiring benevolence of Wesley than did 
any of -his contemporaries. Therefore, in his letter 
to Dr. Seabury, Dr. Coke was imprudent enough to 
speak with confidence upon a subject that depended 
upon a popular election. One hundred men were au- 
thorized to decide the question, and they decided it 
against Dr. Coke. They did not do this to reprove, 
to condemn, nor even to check him. It was a matter 
of principle — the exercise of a right dear to them, 
and of incalculable benefit to their successors, Mr. 
Wesley had chosen Alexander Mather as a superin- 
tendent, perhaps with an indistinct reference to a sim- 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 403 



ilar organization to tliat in America. He left tlie Wes- 
leyans to their own wisdom under God's providence; 
but if they chose an episcopal form of government he 
pointed out the man he preferred, either with or with- 
out Dr. Coke. This is mere conjecture, however, for 
we know that Wesley died entertaining a desire for 
the adherence of the Methodists to the Church. Only 
on one condition, however, and of that they must be 
judges. If continuance in the Church embarrassed 
or retarded the work of God, Mr. Wesley would have 
them to become independent, and he made every pro- 
vision for the alternative. The question was a diffi- 
cult one, but upon the subject of a successor to John 
Wesley there was substantial unanimity. It was im- 
possible; and to prove it so, Alexander Mather and Dr. 
Coke were both set aside at the Conference of 1791, 
although both were elected in after years. The pur- 
pose was clear, the policy sound, and Dr. Coke's sub- 
mission dignified and graceful. 

2. He has been charged with pragmatism and disin- 
genuous conduct in regard to the letters to Drs. White 
and Seabury. His judgment was at fault, and he pub- 
licly confessed his error many years afterward; but it 
was his zeal for the Lord's house that had effectually, 
in this case, eaten up his discretion. Xo native Ameri- 
can could have made Dr. Coke's proposition to Dr. 
White. Xo Englishman as familiar -as Asbury was 
with American sentiment could have dreamed of taking 
such an absurd step. The number of nominal Episco- 
palians would have been increased, but it was impos- 
sible that Methodism should receive the slightest ben- 
efit from the proposed union. On the other hand, the 
Episcopalians would not have received any valuable 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



addition by the Methodist members and preachers. 
The members would have counted for something, but 
two Churches so far apart as these were in doctrine 
and in discipline would have produced agitation, strife, 
and ultimate division if they had been combined; and 
the " wheel within a wheel," the imperium in imperio, of 
Dr. Coke's imagination was a wilder venture than his 
invasion of the French capital a few years before. But 
Dr. Coke's motives were good. There was no honor to 
be won by him in such an experiment. The absurdity 
of his seeking the "apostolical succession" has been 
shown elsewhere, and there is no room for any corrupt 
motive. 

3. He has been charged with defectiveness of judg- 
ment so radical in its character as to disqualify him 
for au important trust. An illustration of this want 
of prudence is his experiment in Paris. The French 
Pievolution had terminated, as it was thought, in 1791, 
in the triumph of liberty, and a new era seemed to be 
dawning in France— a hopeful, joyful era. Protest- 
antism was seemingly invited to enter at the open 
door. Dr. Coke, fresh from America, unwearied in 
labors and travels, set out for the French capital. On 
the way he ordained two French ministers, and took 
them to Paris. Regarding the fall of the Bastile as 
the signal for universal tolerance and good-will to 
men, he proposed to open a church, and proclaim the 
truth as it is in Jesus. The persons who had written 
for the Protestant preachers were Englishmen, and 
the prospect for awakening interest among the French 
did not seem to be brilliant. Nevertheless, the Doc- 
tor took counsel from his hope and zeal, and found a 
vacant church-building, which he bought for a faun- 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers, 



405 



dred and twenty pounds sterling. Dr. Coke began to 
preach in French, and had six persons for his audi- 
ence. Presently the zealous missionary was informed 
that he was not wanted in Paris, and some hints of 
the uses of lamp-posts in that city were given to his 
preachers. Discretion came at last. The trade for 
the church was rescinded, and Dr. Coke retired from 
the unfruitful field. It is impossible to repress a 
smile, while we admire the heroic courage and daunt- 
less spirit of this worthy man. His failure did not 
dampen his zeal, but only urged him to new enter* 
prises and to more successful ventures. The West 
Indies presented a rich harvest, and westward the 
evangelist turned, scattering the seed of the kingdom 
as he passed, on shipboard and on land. 

4. He has been charged with unsteadiness of pur- 
pose — resolving to give his life bo America and the 
Americans, and then revoking his promise in favor of 
England. The truth is, Dr. Coke's temperament was 
hasty and impetuous, his resolutions soon formed and 
bravely carried out; but sometimes they were the 
promptings of generosity rather than the dictates of 
wisdom. He would have remained in America, and 
offered to do so because a few injudicious friends on 
this side of the water gave him advice that was not 
good for him or the Church. Dr. Coke was not adapt- 
ed to the work in America. He involved the South- 
ern planters and the young Church in a fruitless quar- 
rel, that could do nobody any good. All parties were 
powerless to change any thing, and yet Coke proposed 
to compel changes in the relations of master and slave 
which were altogether beyond the province of the 
Church. His continued residence in America would 



- 

406 The High-churchman Disarmed! 



have increased the friction, and perhaps involved As- 
bury in serious entanglements. Coke was in his place 
as an evangelist. As a resident bishop in America he 
would have been a fire-brand, and his subsequent re- 
pentance could have retrieved the errors only partial- 
ly. His offer to remain was made under the impulse 
born of bad advice. His final decision came from the 
mature wisdom of the American Conference and his 
own better judgment. His English friends could not 
lose him, and all parties were content to let him stay 
in England. Methodism in Europe had an imperative 
need of such a man as he, and the cause of missions 
received from his labors an impetus which only the 
great day of revelation can fully measure. 

5. He is charged with Quixotism in trying to bring 
about a union of the Wesleyans and the Church of 
England in 1799; as if he could do what John Wesley 
had failed to do! The correspondence is instructive. 
It is between "T. Coke," "B. London," and "J. Can- 
tuar." Thomas Coke informs "B. London "that he 
has nourished an inclination for some time past to 
write to him on the subject of "securing the great 
body of Methodists in connection with the late Kev. 
John Wesley to the Church of England." He tells 
the Bishop of London that there are between eighty 
and ninety thousand communicants and half a million 
of hearers among the Methodists. These are friends 
of the Church, but lie dreads their "prejudice against 
receiving the Lord's Supper from immoral clergy- 
men." "The word immoral," he says, "they take in 
a very extensive sense— as including all those who fre- 
quent card-tables, balls, horse-racing, theaters, and 
other places of fashionable amusement." He says 



A Defense yf Our Methodist Fathers. 407 



that he has argued in vain to prove that "the validity 
of the ordinance does not depend upon the piety or 
even the morality of the minister." These hard-head- 
ed English Methodists would not be persuaded. "A 
Considerable number" had deviated from the Estab- 
lished Church, and demanded the ordinances at the 
hands of pious men. He proposes to cure this defec- 
tion by having Methodist preachers "ordained" in 
the Establishment to serve the people that will not 
have immoral ministers. He confesses that he himself 
had been somewhat alienated from the Church of En- 
gland "in consequence of my visiting the States of 
America; but like a bow too much bent, I have again 
returned. But I return with a full conviction that 
our numerous Societies in America would have been 
a regular Presbyterian Church if Mr. Wesley and my- 
self had not taken the steps which we judged neces- 
sary to adopt." * 

This is an important acknowledgment, but needs an 
explanation. Presbyterians in government the -early 
Methodists might have been in the one point of an eld- 
er as president or moderator, but not otherwise. In 
doctrine the American Methodists have been stanch 
Arminians from the beginning, and have conquered 
their present vantage-ground only by the itinerant 
system and destructive warfare upon the Westminster 
Confession. Wesley eliminated the Calvinism of the 
Thirty-nine Articles, and gave to America a pure Con- 
fession of Faith, explicit, sufficiently inclusive, and 
thoroughly scriptural. 

Returning to Coke's correspondence, we find no spe- 
cific recommendation further in regard to holding the 



*Ethericlge: Life of Coke, p. 385. 



408 The High-churchman Disarmed: 

Wesleyans to the Church. Beilby Porteus, the same 
prelate who had administered the castigation to the 
" Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in For- 
eign Parts " because they refused to preach to their 
own West Indian slaves, received Dr. Coke's letter 
kindly, courteously. He pronounced the object desir- 
able, and promised to converse with the two archbish- 
ops about it. In a fortnight the high and mighty 
prelate of the Church, "J. Cantuar.," condescended to 
write to Dr. Coke. The substance of his reply will 
be found in this remarkable sentence: "We cannot 
but lament that persons of a religious and serious 
turn of mind should be likely to be separated from our 
communion by an ^11 opinion of our clergy which we 
think ill founded, and upon a principle erroneous and 
not to be admitted were the opinion true."* 

The "persons of a religious and serious turn of 
mind" have settled the problem which Dr. Etheridge 
states at the time of his writing arrested the attention 
of ecclesiastical men. At the Conference of 1882 
these "persons," numbering nearly half a million of 
communicants— probably a larger number than the 
communicants of the Establishment — have at last 
become an independent Church. They have adopted 
the articles of religion prepared for the American 
Methodists by Mr. Wesley, and henceforth they will 
be known as the Wesley an Methodist Church! The 
time may come when, face to face with disestablish- 
ment, the "J Cantuar.," and "B. London," and "T. 
York" of the period may read their episcopal broth- 
er's contemptuous letter with feelings of regret. 

But in any case Dr. Coke had acted unwisely, as it 
* Etheridge: Life of Coke, p. 388. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers, 



409 



seems to us in America. It is painful to read of such 
an expenditure of self-respect in a whimsical enter- 
prise. "J. Cantuar." cared not for the progress of the 
Methodists; why should he? Dependence upon pub- 
lic opinion is the only monitor for men in office, wheth- 
er in Church or State. Secure in all respects, the gen- 
tlemen who change their surnames for their "sees" 
sleep calmly on, and only the fate of the Irish Church 
will be likely to arouse them from their slumber. 

6. Dr. Coke has been charged with publishing at- 
tacks upon private character, in which unworthy mo- 
tives are attributed to those whom he recognized as 
his friends. There is but one specification under this 
charge. The allusion is to the offense given by Dr. 
Coke to Mr. Jarratt by the publication of a "Journal" 
in the Arminian Magazine of 17S9. In his "Life and 
Times of Rev. Jesse Lee" the usually accurate biog- 
rapher, Dr. Leroy M. Lee, says: "In 1789 Dr. Coke 
and Mr. Jarratt met in North Carolina. In a brief 
interview the subject of slavery was introduced and 
discussed. Subsequently Dr. Coke published his 
Journal in the Arminian Magazine for the year, and 
introduced the conversation referred to. The refer- 
ence is a very brief one, and alleges the ownership of 
twenty-four slaves by Mr. Jarratt as the ground of his 
opposition to the measures sought to be carried out by 
himself."* 

The statement of Dr. Lee is not correct, and the 
error, although apparently slight, is of real impor- 
tance to the defense of Dr. Coke. It was not the con- 
versation of 1789 that was published in the Arminian 
Magazine of that year. If it had been so, Mr. Jarratt 

*Life and Times of Rev. Jesse Lee. p. 391. 



410 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



would have had very serious cause for complaint; for 
they had held more than one interview under Mr.Jar- 
ratt's roof. Bat the facts are these: In the Arminian 
Magazine for May, 1789, was begun the "Journal of 
Thomas^ Coke, Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church." The Journal begins September 18th, 1784 
and continues to June 3d, 1785. The installment 
printed m July, 1789, contains the offensive para- 
graph, under date of "Wednesday [March], 30 [1785]. 
Roanoke Chapel I found in this chapel a serious, at- 
tentive people. Here I met with Mr. Jarratt. After 
duty, he went with me to one Brother Seward's, in 
the State of Virginia, about eight miles off. We now 
talked largely on the minutes concerning slavery, but 
he would not be persuaded. The secret is, he has 
twenty-four slaves of his own; but I am afraid he will 
do infinite hurt by his opposition to our Bules."* 

This is the passage alluded to by Dr. Lee, and it 
was written at the first meeting of Dr. Coke and Mr. 
Jarratt in March, 1785, and not in 1789. It would 
have been extraordinary indeed if Dr. Coke, immedi- 
ately after the conversation, had committed it to the 
press. But the Journal was a record of Dr. Coke's 
travels from the time he embarked for America, in 
September, 1784, until his return to England in June, 
1785. It was not published until 1789, and the offen- 
sive paragraph would have been expunged, doubtless, 
if the writer could have overlooked the proofs, or if he 
had been favored with more leisure to. correct and re- 
vise his manuscript. But he was in England when 
the July number of the magazine appeared in Phila- 
delphia. He did not ret urn to America until Eebru- 
*Arminian Magazine, July, 1789, p. 342. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 411 



ary, 1791. Learning that his publication had given 
offense to Mr. Jarratt, he wrote a letter of apology in 
April, and had an interview with Mr. Jarratt. To 
this letter of apology he refers in his letter to Dr. 
White on the 24th of April, 1791. 

The publication was a just cause of offense to Mr. 
Jarratt, and the imprudence of Dr. Coke is not defen- 
sible. But, admitting the impropriety of the attack, 
let it be considered that it was the first impression, 
hastily noted down and thoughtlessly given to the 
press by a man who was scarcely in any one place for 
two days together, and the error will be softened by 
these conditions, although there is no apology for the 
publication. The writer of the Journal and the sub- 
ject of the attack met together afterward as Christian 
men, the one confessing his fault and the other freely 
forgiving it. 

7. Lastly, Dr. Coke is charged with deserting both 
American and British Methodism, to whom he owed 
so much. He proposed to the English Government 
that he should be consecrated a bishop of the Church 
of England! This is the keenest arrow in the quiver 
of Dr. Coke's enemies. It is a charge which, on the 
face of it, declares him a traitor to Methodism, and in 
any view of it requires candid examination by his 
friends as well as those who have no interests involved 
in the issue. The importance of the subject justifies 
the insertion of Dr. Coke's account of this enterprise. 
In a letter to William Wilberforce he makes the fol- 
lowing statement: 

"A subject which appears to me of great moment 
lies much upon my mind, yet it is of such a delicate 
nature that I cannot venture to open my mind upon 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



it to any one of whose candor, piety, delicacy, and 
honor I have not the highest opinion. Such a char- 
acter I do indubitably esteem you, sir; and as such I 
will run the risk of opening my whole heart to you 
upon the point. 

"For at least twelve years the interests of our In- 
dian Empire have lain very near my heart. In several 
instances I have made attempts to open a way for mis- 
sions in that country, and even for my going over 
there myself; but every thing proved abortive. 
The Lord has been pleased to fix me for about thirty- 
seven years on a point of great usefulness. My influ- 
ence in the large Wesleyan Connection, the introduc- 
tion and superintendence of our missions in different 
parts of the globe, and the wide sphere opened to me 
for the preaching of the gospel to almost innumerable 
large and attentive congregations, have opened to me 
a very extensive field for usefulness; and yet I could 
giye up all for India. Could I but close my life in 
being the means of raising a spiritual Church in In- 
dia, it would satisfy the utmost ambition of my soul 
here below. 

"I am not so much wanted in our Connection at 
home as I was. Our Committee of Privileges, as we 
term it, can watch over the interests of the body in 
respect to law and government as well in my absence 
as if I were with them. Our Missionary Committee 
in London can do the same in respect to missions, and 
my absence would only make them feel their duty 
more incumbent upon them. Auxiliary committees 
through the nation (which we now have in contempla- 
tion) will amply supply my place in raising money. 
There is nothing to influence me much against going to 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 413 



India but my extensive sphere for preaching the gos- 
pel; but this, I do assure you, sir, sinks considerably in 
my calculation in comparison of the high honor— if 
the Lord was to confer it upon me in his providence 
and grace— of beginning or reviving a genuine work 
of religion in the immense regions of Asia. 
. "Impressed with these views, I wrote a letter about 
a fortnight ago to the Earl of Liverpool. . . . After 
an introduction drawn up in the most delicate manner 
in my power, I took notice of the observations made 
by Lord Castlereagh in the House of Commons con- 
cerning a religious establishment in India connected 
with the Established Church at home. I then simply 
opened my situation in the Wesleyan Connection as I 
have stated to you above. I enlarged on the earnest 
desire I had of closing my life in India, observing 
that if his Royal Highness the Prince Eegent and the 
Government should think proper to appoint me their 
bishop in India, I should most cheerfully and grate- 
fully accept of the offer. ... I observed that I should, 
in case of my appointment to the episcopacy of India, 
return most fully into the bosom of the Established 
Church, and do every thing in my power to promote 
its interests, and would submit to all such restrictions 
in the fulfillment of my office as the Government and 
Bench of Bishops at home should think necessary; 
that my prime motive was to be useful to the Europe- 
ans in India, and that my second— though not the 
least— was to introduce the Christian religion among 
the Hindoos by the preaching of the gospel, and per- 
haps also by the establishment of schools. 

"When I was in some doubt this morning whether 
I ought to take the liberty of writing to you, my mind 



414 



The High^ekurbhman Disarmed: 



became determined on my being informed about three 
hoiirs ago that in a letter received from you by Mr. 
Hey you observed that the generality of the House of 
Commons were set against granting any thing of an 
imperative kind to the Dissenters or Methodists in fa- 
vor of sending missionaries to India. 

"I am not conscious that the least degree of ambi- 
tion influences me in this business. I possess a fort- 
une of about £1,200 a year, which is sufficient to bear 
my traveling expenses and enable me to make many 
charitable donations. I have lost two dear wives, and 
am now a widower. Our leading friends through the 
Connection receive me with the utmost respect and 
hospitality. I am quite surrounded by friends who 
greatly love me. But India still cleaves to my heart. 
I sincerely believe that my strong inclination to spend 
the remainder of my life in India originates in the 
Divine will, whilst I am called upon to use the second- 
ary means to obtain the end." 

To render this letter intelligible, it is necessary to 
observe that the English Government had under con- 
sideration a proposition to establish a bishopric in 
India. The spirit of missions had not been awak- 
ened, but the large number of Englishmen in public 
employments under the East India Company demand- 
ed a complete Church establishment. They were in 
the condition of the American colonies, and sought 
relief. Dr. Coke saw the matter from a higher and 
more important point of view. He contemplated the 
conversion of the heathens in India. His soul was 
eminently of a missionary cast, and he longed for a 
place of corresponding power in which to wield his 
influence for the gospel. A bishopric in India is not 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 415 



nolo one of the most desirable posts in the Church, 
much less was it likely to be considered at that time 
an object of ambition. Nevertheless, Dr. Coke had 
no pretensions to the place. He had nothing but qual- 
ifications, and these are not often considered. 

More than one hundred years before Dr. Coke wrote 
this letter to the English minister, Dr. Humphrey 
Prideaux, Dean of Norwich, addressed a letter to 
Archbishop Tennison in behalf of the pagans of In- 
dia. The Dean of Norwich, in 1695, regretted that 
the East India Company's charter did not require 
them to " maintain a school and a Church for the ben- 
efit of the Indian inhabitants/'* But governments 
and corporations are not easily influenced in the di- 
rection of religious and moral reforms. Thus the 
matter slept in the dignified bosom of the State 
Church until Dr. Coke disturbed the official slumber 
by a Quixotic letter. 

The impetuous Doctor seems to have forgotten that 
he had any enemies. He boasted to Wilberforce of- 
his friendship with Lord Eldon, Lord Sidinouth, Lord 
Castlereagh, and Lord Bathurst, and others. But 
what did that avail? Those gentlemen were as little at 
liberty to make their own selections for the places of 
honor and trust as a President of the United States 
can be. Inexorable political necessities shape all the 
appointments in a constitutional monarchy and a re- 
public alike. So that Dr. Coke, who had spent his 
life in promoting the interests of non-conformity, had 
not the remotest chance of obtaining a bishopric in 
India; but he did better than that. He lies entombed 
in the secret caves of the Indian Ocean, where the 



~ Life of Dr. Prideaux, p. 151. 



416 The High-churchman Disarmed: 

waves will sing his requiem as long as the days and 
years shall go by into the depths of eternity. 

Dr. Coke sailed for India, and having projected 
a mission for the island of Ceylon, accompanied by 
seven Wesleyan ministers, he embarked his fortune in 
the venture, and died at sea on the 3d of May, 1813. 

Note.— In the excellent biography of Dr. Coke by Dr. Etheridge 
is an erroneous statement, in which the author lias blended two in- 
dependent facts. Speaking of Dr. Coke's letter and proposition for 
the union of the Methodist and Episcopal Churches, Dr. Etheridge 
says: "White, who appears to have been a man of excellent dispo- 
sition and as a Churchman moderate in his ecclesiastical principles, 
would have been willing to concur in the overture; but the 'Con- 
vention,' or yearly synod, of the Protestant Episcopal Church, before 
which it was shortly discussed, were not disposed to acquiesce in the 
terms propounded by Coke, and the scheme, whether a good or a bad 
one, fell to the ground." (Life of Coke, p. 310.) There is a serious 
mistake in this statement. It is undoubtedly true that Dr. "White's 
reply to Dr. Coke expressed approval of the proposed plan of union, 
subsequent denials to the contrary notwithstanding. But the plan 
was never made known to the Convention, and consequently there was 
no expression of opinion on their part upon the subject. The letters 
were written in April and May, 1791, and Dr. Coke left for Europe on 
the same day that he wrote to Dr. Seabury. No answer was received 
from the latter, and the correspondence was never renewed. It was 
the proposition of Bishop Madison to unite the Episcopal and Meth- 
odist Churches that was made known to the Protestant Episcopal 
Convention in 1792, and received no encouragement from that body 
because it gave no promise of success and tended to weaken public 
confidence in the stability of the Protestant Episcopal Church. 



Ghaptiep 200. 

Anglican Orders Denied— Romanist Test— Canon Raynal — Ordi- 
nal of Edward VI.— Fatally Defective in the Form of Ordina- 
tion for a Hundred Years — No Difference Between Priest and 
Bishop — Irregularities in the Protestant Episcopal Church — 
Omission of Essential Words— Can a Bishop Resign? — flobart, 
Provoost. and Moore — Three Bishops in the same Diocese — 
White's Treatment of Bishop Griswold — Character of Griswold — 
Burnet on Lay Baptism — Dodwell — A Question that has Never 
been Settled — Rejected, There is no Episcopacy — Accepted, There 
is no Apostolical Succession. 

IT is not generally known in America that the con- 
troversy between the Anglicans and the Romanists 
concerning the validity of the ministerial orders of the 
Church of England is still in progress. While the 
High-churchmen in- the United States are exerting 
themselves to the utmost to prove that American Meth- 
odists have no Church, no ministry, and no sacraments, 
the Roman Catholics are similarly employed with re- 
gard to the Church of England. When Bishop Ives, 
of North Carolina, resigned his office in the Protest- 
ant Episcopal Church and became a Roman Catholic, 
he lapsed into the ranks as a layman. If a Roman 
Catholic priest should enter the Protestant Episcopal 
Church his orders as a minister are recognized, and 
he is not ordained anew. Rome denies to the Prot- 
estant Episcopal Church the status of a Church of 
Christ, but the Church of Rome is acknowledged by 
EDiscopalians to be a true Church This gives to 
27 (417) 



418 The Htgh-vhwykman Disarmed: 



Rome an immense advantage. . She confesses no equal- 
ity, no fraternity. 

The work of the Rev. Dr. Lee on the " Validity of 
Holy Orders in the Church of England" has been an- 
swered by " Dom Wilfrid Raynal, O.S.B., Canon Pen- 
itentiary of Newport, and Menevia." This answer, 
entitled "The Ordinal of King Edward TL," is a fine 
specimen of logic, without regard to the merits of the 
question at issue. The Romanist deals with apparent 
frankness, and admits that Dr. Lee has made the ordi- 
nation of Archbishop Parker " much more probable 
than it seemed to be before the publication of his 
work." * But the Canon contends that " the sole point 
at issue will then be whether the episcopate could be 
validly conferred when the consecrator used the form 
contained in the Edwardine Ordinal, which was an- 
nexed to the Book of Common Prayer in the year 1552. 
This is the vital question of the controversy, for with- 
out a valid form no sacrament can be administered, 
and no character can be impressed in baptism, con- 
firmation, and holy orders. If Parker did not receive 
the episcopal character because the form used by the 
consecrator was invalid, not only was he himself no 
bishop, but the whole lineage of the Anglican hierachy 
has never possessed that character, descended as it was 
for a hundred years by the same invalid form."t 

A controversy between two prelatists is always in- 
teresting to a reader who indorses both and agrees 
with neither. In so far as the Romanist destroys the 
prelatical claims of the Anglican, the true Protestant 
indorser, his argument if it be well stated. But when 
the Anglica n overthrows the mighty fabric of Roman 

■-"Ordinal of King Edward VI., p. 2. f Ibid., p. 3. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 419 



superstition, we cannot fail to wish him God-speed. 
According to the theory of the Eomanist, every sacra- 
ment consists of the matter and the form. These are 
the terms in use "since the thirteenth century, instead 
of the patristic res et verba" % The Canon proceeds 
to show that the matter of ordination is the imposition 
of hands, and that prayer is its form. "Since Catho- 
lics and Anglicans are agreed as to the matter, our 
whole attention must be directed to the form." He 
then proceeds to show, by the usual methods of Eo- 
manist logic, which prove a little and assume a great 
deal, that tradition has brought down from the days 
of the apostles, through the Roman See, the true sac- 
ramental forms of holy orders. 

We are not interested in the various steps by which 
this author arrives at his conclusion, but the conclu- 
sion itself is of some importance. "The Presbyte- 
rians of the seventeenth century were not well versed 
in theology," says Canon Raynal, " but they belonged 
to a race of quick-sighted men, who soon detected the 
inconsistencies of others. Hence, in their polemical 
works against the Anglican Church they called upon 
her openly to avow her denial of the powers of the 
episcopate, since, in the ordination of her clergy, she 
had invariably used forms which established no dis- 
tinction between the episcopacy and the priesthood. . . 
Burnet was frank enough to record this objection, and 
to admit that it was well founded. In his ' History of 
the Reformation' he narrates the revision of the Or- 
dinal, and says: 'They agreed on a form of ordaining 
deacons, priests, and bishops, which is the same we 
yet (i. <?., A.D. 1683) use, except in some few words 
* Ordinal of King Edward VI., p. 39. 



420 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



that Lave been added since in the ordination of a priest 
or bishop. For there was then no express mention made 
in the words of ordaining them that it teas for the one or 
other office.'"* 

Now this is an important fact. For one hundred 
years of her existence the Church of England, in her 
form of ordination, made no difference between a pres- 
byter and a bishop. From the words used' by the or- 
dainer himself no man could tell whether the person 
consecrated was set apart to the ministry in the order 
of elders or presbyters, or set apart as a superintend- 
ent or bishop of a diocese. The importance of the fact 
does not belong to the subject in itself, for there was 
distinction enough between the two ceremonies; but 
the fact is, that the form of the ordination is the spe- 
cific act by which ministerial authority is bestowed, 
according to High-churchmen as well as Komanists; 
and if this form be defective, the whole service is a 
nullity. It is upon this basis that Canon Kaynal 
places the conclusion of his book, that all the orders 
of the Church of England are void for want of defi- 
niteness, lacking " the 'principium deter m ination is ' which 
serves to specify the imposition of hands." f 

We pronounce judgment in this case, not according 
to our own views of the rite of ordination, but in ac- 
cordance with the rigid requirements of the "apostol- 
ical secessionists;" and by these requirements minis- 
terial authority in the Church of England ceased to 
exist more than three hundred years ago. It is true 
that the Eomanist can as little afford to have his own 
system tested by these rules as the Anglican sacra- 
mentarian, but the Eoman ist can always take refuge 
* Ordinal of King Edward VI., p. 163. f Ibid., p. 171. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 421 



in the Pope, the fountain of plenary power. No such 
recourse is open to the High-churchman. If his sys- 
tem falls before the ax of logic, he perishes with it; for 
his system is his pope, his strong tower, his defense 
against the world. 

But the history of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
had not completed its first quarter of a century before 
vitiating irregularities made their appearance. Of 
these perhaps the most important in a technical sense 
occurred in 1811 at the ordination of Bishop Hobart, 
of New York. Nominally there were six bishops of 
the Church, but one of these, Provoost, had resigned 
his office. Bishop Claggett was too ill to reach the 
Convention. Bishop Moore had been afflicted with a 
stroke of paralysis, and Bishop Madison, of Virginia, 
had bound himself, tinder the solemnity of an oath* not 
to leave William and Mary College. This was cer- 
tainly a remarkable state of affairs. Twenty-four 
years after the "succession" had been borrowed from 
England it seemed about to expire under the multi- 
plied afflictions of paralytic strokes, a resignation, and 
an oath to a board of college trustees ! There was a 
serious and well-founded apprehension, says Bishop 
White, that the American Church would be compelled 
to have recourse the second time to the mother Church 
for the episcopacy, or proceed without the " canonical 
number." The meeting was in New Haven, and two 
new candidates were waiting to be ordained bishops. 
The conduct of Bishop Madison seems to be inexpli- 
cable. No duties of a college president would forbid 
his absence for a few days upon the business of the 
Church. Admitting the fact that he had taken an 
* White's Memoirs, p. 248. 



422 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



oath not to leave the college, had he not taken a pre- 
vious oath, one of the most solemn vows that man can 
record in earth or heaven, to serve the Church of the 
living God? It is astonishing that Bishop White 
should have no words of censure in this case. He 
has left on record his belief that Whitefield's itinerant 
ministry was inconsistent with his moral obligation to 
obey his diocesan.-- He impeached the moral honesty 
of Whitefield because he, like Wesley, took the world 
for his parish; but this man, who takes the oath of a 
bishop, then forsakes his flock, hides himself within 
the walls of a secluded seminary, and binds himself 
by an oath not to discharge the duties which he has 
voluntarily promised to perform— for the delinquent 
bishop there is not a word of reproof! Is it charity 
that seals his lips and forestalls his pen? 

But so it was: Dr. White and Dr. Jarvis were the 
only bishops present. Dr. White had, three years 
before, debated some time with himself as to whether 
one bishop could make a "House," and it seems he 
left the question undetermined. But if there was a 
"House of Bishops" present at this time, there were 
not enough to ordain, "canonically," another. Dr. 
Hobart— young, vigorous, full of war, breathing out 
fire and tempest upon all opponents of High-church 
principles— and the meek, patient, evangelical Dr. 
Griswold, the plebeian shoe-maker from Connecticut, 
were sent forward to receive episcopal ordination! 
Bishops White and Jarvis, together with the candi- 
dates, adjourned from New Haven to New York City 
to meet Dr. Provoost. But why not Bishop Moore? 
We cannot tell. Surely itcould not have been a mat- 
"Life of White, p. 24. 



A Defense of Oar Methodist Fathers. 423 



ter of choice, for Dr. Provoost had resigned his office. 
The reader, who may be acquainted with the singular 
proceedings of these conventions, may recall the fact 
that the "House of Bishops" in 1804 had declared 
that Bishop Provoost could not resign his episcopal 
jurisdiction. Such a resignation was not " consistent 
with ecclesiastical order, or with the practice of Epis- 
copal Churches in any ages, or with the tenor of the 
office of consecration."* Nevertheless, the diocesan 
convention passed a series of resolutions the next year, 
declaring that Dr. Provoost had resigned his episcopal 
jurisdiction, and from the time that Iris resignation 
had been accepted, in 1801, he had ceased to be bishop 
of the diocese of New York. Here, then, was the dio- 
cese of New York in antagonism with the House of 
Bishops— no great matter in itself, but the result of 
this antagonism w T as important in many ways. Dr. 
Hobart was to be assistant to Dr. Moore, and Dr. 
Moore had taken the place of Dr. Provoost, Now Dr. 
Provoost was requested to assist in the ordination of 
a man whose election w^as to work his own exclusion 
from the episcopate in the diocese. If the bishops 
were right, Dr. Provoost was still the real diocesan, 
and Dr. Moore his assistant. What, then, in this case, 
was Dr. Hobarfc? Three bishops in one diocese had 
not been known in modern times, and it w r as, beyond 
question, " uncanonical " to have an assistant to an as- 
sistant, while the real original diocesan was clamoring 
for reinstatement in his office. Perhaps a similar en- 
tanglement has never puzzled the doctors of the 
"canon" law. 

But the question was, What is the status of Dr. 



* Memoirs of the Church, p. 419, 



The High r churc7wian Disarmed: 



Provoost? He either is, or he is not, bishop of the 
diocese. If the episcopal order is indelible, he cannot 
resign, and he is therefore, in cooperating in the or- 
dination of Dr. Hobart, helping to create an officer 
unknown to ecclesiastical law. If Dr. Provoost is not 
the diocesan, he is not a bishop at all; for a bishop 
without a diocese is a head without a body. If he is 
not the diocesan, and is not, therefore, a true bishop, 
how can he " canonically " participate in the consecra- 
tion of a bishop? Dr. Jarvis, one of the parties in 
this proceeding, proposed to prove in one of his tracts 
that the English Church was autocephalons, but here 
we have a tricephalous body! An amputated head 
unites with a disabled head to create a third head! 

Surely here were difficulties enough for one session, 
but Dr. White proceeded to increase the number. In 
the form of consecration of Dr. Hobart and Dr. Gris- 
wold, Bishop White omitted the words "In the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 
The Komanist canon would say that this omission ren- 
dered the so-called ordination null and void, and there 
were not a few High-churchmen whom Dr. Hobart 
had helped to educate into the same views. A "polit- 
ical justice" met Dr. Hobart on the threshold of his 
labors. "He found himself stopped, as it were, on 
the threshold," says his biographer, "threatened by 
an opposition in which doctrinal opinions and personal 
hostility were mingled up with vague and wide-spread 
doubts as to the validity both of the principle and 
manner of his consecration."* He had more to do 
with creating the High-church sentiment than any 
man in the Church. He was a man of war, and un- 



*Life of Hobart, p. 213. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers 



425 



sheathed the sword of controversy with a courage 
which many admired who did not approve of his 
principles. Even the patriarch of the Church, Dr. 
White, is said by the Bishop of Oxford to have had 
his Churchmanship developed and rendered more 
"pronounced" by the fiery young orator of New 
York* 

The associate of Dr. Hobart in the parish of Trinity 
Church entered the field with a "Solemn Appeal to 
the Church " against Dr. Hobart and his ordination. 
Following the Eev. Cave Jones in his assault upon the 
new bishop came the application of Dr. Provoost for 
reinstatement in the work of the diocese! Not were 
these all of the complications in the case. Perhaps 

*The alarm created by the omission of the essential words in the 
ceremony of ordination was very great. A pamphlet appeared with 
the title, " Serious thoughts on a late administration of episcopal or- 
ders, submitted to the calm reflection of the bishops of the Protest- 
ant Episcopal Church, with a postscript in answer to Dr. Bowden's 
Essentials of Ordination Stated." In this pamphlet the author ap- 
peals to the recognized authorities in the High-church party. The 
conclusion of the argument is forcibly presented : "Suppose that at 
some future period, when the heat of passion is allayed, when calm 
reflection is suffered to be called into exercise, that then it shall be 
found and acknowledged that the considerations here advanced have 
weight, and that the consecration is attended with an essential defect; 
what will then be the state of our Church? Our priesthood invalid, 
our succession lost, numbers, under a show of ordination, ministering 
without authority; the evil so extended as to be beyond the power 
of correction." "For myself, I am seriously and conscientiously 
persuaded that the omission of the solemn words is material, that it is 
essential, that it renders the whole form besides an utter nullity." 
I Quoted in Smyth's Apostolical Succession, p. 220. ) 

This is the judgment of an Episcopal writer of that day, and, ar- 
guing from the premises of a High-churchman, no other conclusion 
is possible. 



426 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



the incident to be related will account for the phe- 
nomenal omission by the presiding bishop on the oc- 
casion of the ordination. Dr. Griswold was the senior 
candidate. He was an older man that Dr. Hobart. 
and had been elected twelve months earlier. By all 
the precedents, as well as proprieties of the case, Dr. 
Griswold was entitled to priority in " the laying on of 
hands. " ; But the first man that was ordained would 
become eventually the presiding bishop, and Dr. 
White had his reasons for preferring Dr. Hobart for 
that position.* The reason assigned by Dr. White was 
that Dr. Hobart was. at that time, a Doctor of Divin- 
ity, while his Brother Griswold was not! 

The defense of this action was a reference to the 
custom in England, where precedency is accorded, not 
to seniority in age, but to priority of date in university 
degrees. If this reason was adequate to the case, it- 
ought to have excluded Mr. Griswold, for he had no 
university degrees at all! This excuse is pronounced 
by the biographer of Bishop Griswold to be insuffi- 
cient. "It is not easy to conceive that, under the very 
peculiar circumstances of the case, he would have 
given that reason a governing weight had not his mind, 
unconsciously to itself no doubt, felt the pressure of a 
strong feeling in action about him. and moving him 
in the direction which the service of consecration 
took." f 

The tenderness of this writer for Dr. White is al- 
most equal to the diplomatic suavity of the venerable 
Bishop of Pennsylvania. Dr. Hobart was a sectarian 
of uncompromising character. He would have notic- 
ing to do with the American Bible Society, but advo- 
*Life of Bishop Gris->rold, p. 165. flbid., p. 167. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 427 



catecl "Bible and Prayer-book" societies. He was 
excessively afraid of revival excitements, and detested 
prayer-meetings and the like. He was a noisy Higli- 
churehman, and soon had the religions world in a fer- 
ment by reason of his pragmatical essays, sermons, 
and speeches. His " Chuf chianity " was offensive to 
many. The policy of arraying all the denominations 
in the country against the weakest one among them was 
a doubtful experiment. It was, however, the necessary 
result of Dr. Hobart's crusade against the Churches, 
that the non-Episcopalians were aroused to a thorough 
examination of the pretensions which the " secession- 
ists " made. Xo evil can come of the investigation of 
truth in any department of knowledge. Given a spirit 
of charity and an earnest desire to know the truth, 
there need be no fears as to the issue. Both parties 
will be confident in the opinions they have advocated; 
but after the smoke and din of the battle-field have 
passed away, victory will be found somewhere. If the 
prelatical party has carried the day, the advantage will 
belong to them; and their growth, compared with their 
opponents, will be manifest in due season. 

Bishop Griswold had no taste for these controver- 
sies. He was a good man, well versed in the sacred 
Scriptures, believed that the work of saving souls and 
the prosperity of the Church were the same, and he 
had no sympathy with the High-church party. " Some 
are unwilling to distribute the Bible without the 
Prayer-book,'" he said some years afterward, "alleging 
as a reason that the Church of God should go with the 
Word of God. This, however, implies that there is a 
Church not to be found in the Bible.'"- This was a 
* Life of Griswold, p. 577. 



428 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



fatal concession, which Dr. Hobart could not see. 
There were a few objections to his course, but in the 
end the bishop of the diocese of New England laid a 
better, broader, stronger foundation for his Church 
than that projected by the restless New Yorker. 
When Puseyism showed its head in his diocese, 
Bishop Griswold aimed such sturdy blows at the piti- 
ful imitation of Romanism that it fell to trouble him 
no more. On the other hand, the son-in-law of Bishop 
Hobart, Dr. Ives, of North Carolina, followed the 
teachings of the High-church party until he arrived 
at the Vatican, and remained there a pervert to Borne. 

The agitation caused by the knight-errantry of Bish- 
op Hobart recalled the questions which once per- 
plexed the minds of English Churchmen. "Another 
conceit was taken up," says Bishop Burnet, giving 
the origin of extreme High-church views in the days 
of Queen Anne, "of the validity of lay baptism, on 
which several books have been writ; nor was the dis- 
pute a trifling one, since by this notion the teachers 
among the Dissenters, passing for laymen, this went 
to the rebaptizing them aixl their congregations. 

"Dodwell gave rise to this conceit, He was a very 
learned man, and led a strict life. He seemed to hunt 
after paradoxes in all his writings, and broached not 
a few. He thought none could be saved but those 
who, by the sacraments, had a federal right to it, and 
that these were the seals of the covenant; so that he 
left all who died without the sacraments to the uncov- 
enanted mercies of God, and to this he added that 
none had the right to give but those who were com- 
missioned to it; and these were the apostles, and after 
them bishops and priests ordained by them. It fol- 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 429 



lowed upon this that sacraments administered by oth- 
ers were of no value. He pursued these notions so 
far that he asserted that the souls of men were natu- 
rally mortal, but that the immortalizing virtue was 
conveyed by baptism given by persons episcopally or- 
dained. And yet, after all this, which carried the 
episcopal function so high, he did not lay the origin 
of that government on any instruction or warrant in 
the Scripture, but thought it was set up in the begin- 
ning of the second century, after the apostles were all 
dead. . . This strange and precarious system was in 
great credit among us, and the necessity of the sacra- 
ment, and the invalidity of ecclesiastical functions, 
when performed by persons who were not episcopally 
ordained, were entertained by many with great ap- 
plause. This made the Dissenters pass for no Chris- 
tians, and put all thoughts of reconciling them to us 
far out of view. And several little books were spread 
about the nation to prove the necessity of rebaptizing 
them, and that they were in a state of damnation till 
that was done; but few were, by these arguments, 
prevailed upon to be rebaptized. This struck even at 
the baptism by midwives in the Church of Eome, 
which was practiced and connived at here in England 
till it was objected to in the conference held at Hamp- 
ton Court, soon after King James the First's accession 
to the crown; and baptism was not till then limited to 
persons in orders. Nothing of this kind was so much 
as mentioned in the year 1660, when a great part of the 
nation had been baptized by Dissenters; but it was now 
promoted with much heat."* 

Thus we find the origin o f the doctrines which were 

-Burnet: History of His Own Time, vol. iv., p. 370. 



430 The High ~ch urchman Disarmed : 



advocated with so much zeal by Bishop Hobart. He 
was not a theologian, and did not see the fatal conse- 
quences of his theories, for there were in his own dio- 
cese palpable illustrations of the absurdity of his ex- 
clusive views. Bishop Provoost had been baptized by 
a Presbyterian minister, and was never rebaptized after 
he became an Episcopalian. According to the High- 
church theory he was not a Christian, although a 
bishop of a Christian Church! But the reader will 
not be startled at this proposition when he learns that, 
in the creed of a High-churchman, it is not necessary 
to be a Christian, even in form, in order to be a bishop! 
Bishop White states that, according to the doctrine 
of the High-churchman, "the succession" may be 
handed down by unbaptized heathens* and the Bishop 
of Oxford regrets that unbaptized laymen have repre- 
sented the Church in America in its highest legisla- 
ture If If men may be bishops and law-makers who 
are not members of the Christian Church, even by 
virtue of the initiatory rite of baptism administered 
by any hand, what is the value of the sacraments, and 
what is the Church itself? 

Bishop Burnet informs us that the extravagances of 
Dodwell and his party brought the Episcopal Bench 
into consultation in order to check the insensate con- 
troversy. "The bishops thought it necessary," he 
says, "to put a stop to this new and extravagant 
doctrine, so a declaration was agreed to, first against 
the irregularity of all baptism by persons who were 
not in holy orders, but that yet, according to the prac- 
tice^ the primitive Church and the constant usage 

* Memoirs, p. 252. f History of the Protestant Episcopal Chnrch 
in America, p. 252. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers, 



481 



of the Church of England, no baptism (in or with 
water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy 
Ghost) ought to be reiterated." * The Archbishop of 
Canterbury, and all of the bishops except one, joined 
in this declaration; and it was carried to the Lower 
House of Convocation, where it was not taken up for 
consideration up to the time that venerable and use- 
less institution, the Convocation itself, was abolished 
by royal mandate. 

But the question of "lay baptism" is not decided 
by "pretermitting" it. The subject is too important 
to be dismissed with a sneer. Dr. White is decidedly 
in favor of admitting the validity of lay baptism, for 
without it "there would be no certainty of the existence of 
a bishop in Christendom " \ This is the heart of the 
matter. According to the High-church doctrine "lay 
baptism" is invalid, and for that reason we affirm, 
with Dr. White, that it cannot be proved that a bishop 
of the "apostolical succession " exists; but it is a poor 
argument to say we cannot admit your premises, for, 
if we do, our theory is disproved. The question is 
not whether the denial of lay baptism will do this or 
that, or have this or that consequence, but is lay bap- 
tism valid in the light of the Bible, reason, and the 
economy of the kingdom of Christ. If it is not val- 
id, the fact that the result is destructive to our party 
is not the fault of the doctrine, but of the party that 
rejected it. If it is valid, let us be careful that proper 
guards are placed about it, lest the liberty of the 
kingdom of heaven be transformed into the license of 
the prince of this world of darkness. 

* Burnet: History of His Own Time. vol. iv.. p. 371. t Memoirs 
P . 252. 



432 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



What is lay baptism ? It is the administration of 
the ordinance of baptism by a layman, of course. But 
what is a layman? It is a member of the Christian 
Church who is not in ministerial orders. Can a man 
be a layman, in the clerical sense, who is not a member 
of the Church? Of course he» cannot. A heathen 
Chinaman may pronounce the formula of baptism, and 
use the element for the purpose— both matter and form 
may be employed— and it is not baptism. Why? Be- 
cause, if baptism be the door to the kingdom, it must 
be opened by one who is a citizen of the kingdom, 
otherwise baptism is a mere collocation of words that 
work, ex opere operato, by their own virtue, the effect 
designed. This makes a species of magic, of black 
art, out of the institutions of the Church. 

It being settled that a layman is a non-clerical mem- 
ber of the Church, is a Dissenter a member of the Church? 
To say that he is, establishes his baptism, but destroys 
the barrier between Episcopacy and Presbyterianism. 
To say that he is not, destroys the baptism and anni- 
hilates the apostolical succession. There is no third 
resort; no choice exists beyond these two results. 
Now, when we transfer the issue to America, dropping 
"Dissenter," because there are no dissenters where 
there is no State Church, we have the case fairly 
stated. If the baptism of a Presbyterian minister be 
valid, it is because he is a lay member of the Church; 
but he is a member of no Church except the Presby- 
terian, therefore the Presbyterian is a true Church, 
because an invalid Church cannot produce a valid bap- 
tism. A Church that can give one of the ordinances 
in a valid form can give them all. If baptism be 
rightly performed by a layman, the Lord's Supper 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



433 



may be celebrated by the same person; and it follows 
that ministerial orders, being less sacred than divine 
ordinances, may be rightly administered by a Church 
that rightly administers the higher and more sacred 
ordinances and rites of the Lord's house. 

There is but one method of disposing of this argu- 
ment, and it is generally employed. It is simply to 
take as much of the fact as suits our purpose, and dis- 
carding all the rest take refuge from reason in a blind 
and stolid indifference to logic. "If the prejudice 
should prevail," says Bishop White, "it is very un- 
fortunate that two of our bishops (Dr. Provoost and 
Dr. Jarvis) never received baptism from an Episcopalian 
administrator. So that who knows what scruples this 
may occasion as to the validity of many of our ordi- 
nations, and among the numbei those of the very two 
gentlemen who made the stir at the late Convention? 
It is true that to meet this difficulty the distinction is 
devised of the possibility of transmitting the Episco- 
pal succession through persons who are not members 
of the Christian Church."* In one of his letters to 
Bishop Hobart Dr. White shows the consequence of 
denying "lay baptism." He says: "Suppose that 
such a man as the ex-Bishop of Autun had taken it 
into his head during the triumph of atheism to conse- 
crate the officers of those clubs of which we have heard 
so much from Professor Robinson and the Abbe Bar- 
uel, some of whom, if I recollect rightly, assumed the 
names of the Christian ministry, would such persons 
be valid bishops, sufficient for the handing down of 
the succession? I think they would, on Mr. Law- 
rence's principles; and therefore, before we admit 
* Memoirs, p. 251. 



434 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



these principles, let us be aware of what they lead 
to.' 5 * 

Did not Dr. White know that he received his apos- 
tolical succession through as great atheists and unbe- 
lievers as the ex-Bishop of Autun? Would a man of 
honest principles prefer to receive his ecclesiastical 
authority through the hands of a lecherous, murderer, 
like Alexander VI., or an avowed atheist, like John 
XXIII. , popes of Borne, to those of the apostate Bish- 
op of Autun? Bad as he was, did innocent blood of 
his own kindred stain his garments? Did he confess 
to be God's vicegerent on earth, when he denied the 
existence of God? And Dr. White's succession comes 
through Borne, or it comes not at all. What does it 
matter to the principle involved whether two bishops 
of "our Church" were ever baptized or not? Must 
truth forever bend and bow to the exigences of a fac- 
tion? Is not this the conduct of the ostrich, that flies 
from her pursuer and buries her head in the sand, 
counting herself secure because she cannot see her 
enemies? Alas that such men as these should sacri- 
fice reason and common sense for a worn-out dogma, 
one of superstition's darkest children! 

But the fact is — and it must not be permitted to pass 
out of sight — that to acknowledge the validity of " lay 
baptism" is to destroy "episcopal succession" as ab- 
solutely as by its denial, for the admission of a valid 
ordinance in Presbyterianism is to admit a valid 
Church. Lay baptism was provided for, in the first 
Prayer-book of Edward VI., in 1549, on the ground of 
necessity, as it was believed essential that e*very person 
should be baptized, and that none could enter heaven 



*Life of Bishop White, p. 368. 



A Defense Of Our Methodist Fathers. 



435 



without it.* This barbarous doctrine, that degraded 
the mercy and grace of God into an implement of 
profit among an ungodly ministry, is part of the sys- 
tem of the High-churchmen. One of these, i>ishop 
Brownell, of Connecticut, speaks the sentiments of 
all when he says: "The true economy of the Christian 
religion regards men by nature as the children of wrath. 
It takes them from this State, which is called in Script- 
ure 'the kingdom of Satan,' and transfers them by bap- 
tism unto the family, household, and kingdom of the 
Saviour." f 

This act of transfer from darkness to light, from 
the kingdom of Satan to the kingdom of Christ, is 
certainly one of the most wonderful works that can be 
performed by any power of any class or character; and 
yet the exigences of the case demand that a layman 
in the Presbyterian Church must be credited with the 
ability of doing this for the Episcopal Church! A 
layman of one body not recognized as a Church at all 
opens the door and admits a member into the true 
Church of Christ, he, the officiating layman, being out 
of the Church and out of the kingdom himself! It is 
said, however, that this baptism is irregular, because 
it is not administered by a minister, but is valid, al- 
though irregular. If this be so, the regeneration is 
"irregular," as a matter of course, and then we have 
a human soul "irregularly" admitted into the king- 
dom of God by an "irregular" regeneration, effected 
by a man who had never been regenerated himself! 

It is astonishing that, in full view of the weakness 
of their system at this point, the advocates of prelat- 

*Wheatly on the Common Prayer, p. 372. f Quoted in Puritans 
and their Principles, p. 372. 



436 The Iligh-chiirchman Disarmed: 

ical succession, apparently presuming upon the igno- 
rance of their readers, do not condescend to notice a 
defect that vitiates and destroys their entire theory. 
No doctrine which labors under such disabilities can 
be the truth of God. 

It is trifling with the human understanding to re- 
quire it to* receive such manifest absurdities in logic 
as just deductions from the inspired Scriptures. 



Succession Through the Pope of Kome — The Chain Examined — 
Chapin's Primitive Church — Confusion and Disorder in the Be- 
ginning of the Eoman Line — "Muddy as the Tiber" — Contradic- 
tions that Cannot be Keconciled — Seven Different Lists of the 
First Four Bishops of Kome — Equal Confusion in Computing the 
Times of Occupancy — Seven Discords — The Entire Catalogue In- 
volved in Doubt, Confusion, and Discrepancy — Authorities Quoted : 
Florence of Worcester, Ordericus Vitalis, Matthew of Westminster, 
Roger Hoveden, and Others — Mr. Chapin's Blunders — Succession 
from Canterbury in the Same Confusion. 

THE episcopal succession through the Popes of 
Rome presents to the High-churchman the best 
apology for a chain whose links can be numbered and 
named. If it can be shown that there were two hun- 
dred and fifty-four popes from Linus, A.D. 67, to 
Gregory XYL, A.D. 1831, as Mr. Chapin claims in 
his "Primitive Church,"* then, upon the supposition 
that each of these was a lawful bishop, and canonic- 
ally ordained, the connection between the present 
Pope and the apostolic age is proved beyond ques- 
tion. This might be admitted as the truth, however, 
without profit to the theory of prelatical succession 
as held by Protestant Episcopalians. 

The popes do not ordain each other, and there is 
nothing to be gained by proving that the Roman chair 
has been filled by two or by five hundred men. It 
must be shown that each of these men was a lawful 
bishop before he became a pope, or that his ordina- 



* Primitive Church, p. 347. 



(437) 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



tion as a pope made him a canonical bishop. If this 
can be done, the Eoman succession is established; but 
the Protestant Episcopalian must show that the epis- 
copal grace bestowed by the last Eoman prelate has 
been preserved in the successive occupants of the of- 
fice in England. The requirements are very many. 
First, the man must be a Christian— that is, in High- 
church parlance, he must be baptized. He must be 
ordained deacon, priest, or presbyter, and bishop suc- 
cessively; and every man in the list of bishops must 
have been consecrated by three bishops, or his claim 
will be disputed. Let it be understood, too, that these 
conditions are essential not only in the individuals 
filling the episcopal chair, but they must exist in every 
person who has contributed to the "creation" of a 
bishop. For example: the presbyter who baptized 
him must have been ordained by a canonical bishop; 
the prelate officiating in each of his ordinations, from 
deacon to bishop, must have been canonically regular. 
If any instance of irregularity occurs, then the whole 
virtue of the consecration is lost. Nothing can be 
taken for granted in a case like this. The salvation 
of the souls of men is staked upon a very frivolous 
issue, it 'is true, but the necessities of the theory de- 
mand it. Because the Council of Nice passed a can- 
on requiring three officiating bishops for the conse- 
cration of a bishop, it is made a rule inexorable. No 
man can tell how many bishops before the meeting 
of the Council, and afterward as well, were " irregu- 
lar" on this account. 

Mr. Chapin designates eleven popes of Rome who 
were deacons only when elected to the papacy. He 
does not undertake to prove that each of these men 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 439 



was ordained a presbyter before he was made a bish- 
op; and yet, if this is not done, the succession fails 
from this cause. In the year 862 Pope Nicholas re- 
fused to acknowledge Photius, Patriarch of Constan- 
tinople, because he was only a layman when he was 
placed in the episcopal chair. Photius replied that 
there was no canon in the Church of Constantinople 
forbidding a layman to be made a bishop. He as- 
serted also that the Latin Church had frequently vio- 
lated her own canon in that respect. Ambrose, of 
Milan, was not only a layman, but a civil officer when 
elected bishop, and his ordination was confirmed by 
a General Council. Not only so, but he had not been 
baptized when he was elected bishop, and was ordained 
to the episcopal office only a few days after he was 
baptized.* In his reply to Photias, Nicholas admits 
the fact, but says the case of Ambrose was a miracle, 
an infant having nominated him for the place! 

But these are not all of the difficulties in the the- 
ory of prelatical succession. To be canonically con- 
secrated is necessary; but it is equally necessary to 
be lawfully elected, or chosen by the proper author- 
ities. Statutes, customs, rules may change, but it is 
certainly required that each candidate for the episco- 
pacy should be selected for the office according to the 
rule of law in force at the time of his appointment. 
Especially does this apply in the case of the popes. 
There could be but one "universal bishop" existing 
at the same time. Of two claimants for the office, 
both may be false, but there can be only one that is 
the true Pope. Lawfully elected and canonically in- 
ducted into office are requisites for the papal succession. 



*■ Bower's History of the Popes, vol. p. 282. 



440 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



It cannot be proved that St. Peter visited Eome. 
Those authors who attempt to prove his residence 
there differ as to the length of time he spent in Eome. 
Some say eleven years, and others twenty-five years, 
two months, and three days. The mention of days in 
this computation shows, by the extreme effort to be 
accurate, that the whole matter is a subject of con- 
jecture. But, admitting his residence there, who fol- 
lowed him in the See of Eome? Tertullian, early in 
the third century, says Clement followed Peter; and 
Eufinus agrees with Tertullian. Irenams, contem- 
porary with Tertullian, says that Anacletus preceded 
Clement. Epiphanius and Optatus, two centuries 
later, say that Anacletus and Cletus preceded Clem- 
ent, Augustine and Damasus, nearly at the same 
time with Epiphanius, say that Anacletus, Cletus, and 
Linus preceded Clement. Now, here are three differ- 
ent statements as to the place occupied by Clement 
in the Eoman succession. But these are not all. A 
glance at the following table will show the confusion 
existing at this point: 

1 2 3 4 5 G 7 

Linus, Clement, Anacletus, Anacletus, Anacletus, Linus, Clemens, 
Anacletus, Anacletus, Clement, Cletus, Cletus, Cletus, Anacletus, 
Clement, Linus, Linus, Clement, Linus, Clemens, Evaristus, 
Evaristus. Evaristus. Evaristus. Evaristus. Clement. Anacletus, Alexander. 

1. Mr. Chapin's list,* following Eusebius. 2. Ter- 
tullian, earlier than Eusebius. 3. Irensous, contem- 
porary with Tertullian. 4. Epiphanius, later than 

*Such is the dire confusion prevailing in regard to these sup- 
posed bishops of Eome that even Mr. Chapin cannot preserve con- 
sistency in repeating the names. On page 284 he begins the line of 
Eoman bishops from Eusebius, and No. 2 is " Cletus." On page 347 
he gives the list on the authority of Eusebius, and No. 2 is "Ana- 
cletus." 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 4A1 

Eusebius. 5. Augustine, early in the Y. Century. 6. 
Ordericus Yitalis, in the XII. Century, and accepted 
by Baronius and others. 7. Florence .of Worcester, 
early in the XII. Century. It will be seen by this 
table that Clement occupies every place from No. 2 to 
No. 5. "Certainly if the line of succession fails us 
here, when we most need it," says Bishop StilHng- 
fleet, "we have little cause to pin our faith upon it as 
to the certainty of any particular form of Church gov- 
ernment settled in the apostles' times that can be 
drawn from the help of the records of the primitive 
Church; which must be first cleared of all defective- 
ness, ambiguity, partiality, and confusion before the 
thing we inquire for can be extracted out of them.''* 
At the very outset, then, we are brought face to face 
with a problem that no man can solve. Eusebius, 
whom High-churchmen have chosen to follow, because 
he has taken most pains to discover the facts, is a 
witness against his own accuracy. In the beginning, 
when about to record a list of the bishops of the Ko- 
man Church, he makes an admission that destroys 
all confidence in his conclusions. Speaking of the 
Churches planted by Peter and Paul, and of the min- 
isters in these Churches, he says: "There being so 
many of them, and some naturally rivals, it is not 
easy to say which of them were accounted eligible to 
govern the Churches established, unless it be those 
that we may select out of the writings of Paul."f 
Indeed, the entire line of succession of Boman bish- 
ops depends upon the credibility of an unknown author 
quoted by Eusebius, and we have no means by which to 
verify either th equotation s of E usebius or the state- 
*Irenicum, p. 346. f Eusebius, L. 3, c. 4; _ Stillingfleet's translaW 



442 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



ments of the author he relies upon. Is it conceiva- 
ble that men of good sense can allow themselves to 
regard as a matter necessary to salvation a statement 
which depends upon the authority of an unknown 
author? Surely, in the language of Bishop Stilling- 
fleet, "the succession is as muddy as the Tiber itself." 

Let us take, however, one of the seven lists of the 
first four successors of Peter, and we shall find the 
same confusion existing as to the length of time as- 
signed to the episcopate of these four bishops: 

LlNUS. Years. Mos. Days. 



1. According to Onuphrius 2 26 

2 - M - Pagi 2 

3. Baronius and Labbe 11 2 23 

4. MS. of the VIII. Century, etc 11 3 12 

5. Catalogue of the IV. Century, etc .12 4 10 

6. Second Catalogue of Mabillon. 12 5 12 

7. Pontifical of Daraasus, etc 15 3 12 

Oletus. 

1. Catalogue of Schelstrate, etc. 6 2 7 

2. Onuphrius, in Platina 6 5 3 

3- M.Pagi " 8 

4. Second Catalogue of Mabillon 8 2 5 

5. Onuphrius, in the Chronique. 9 4 26 

6. First Catalogue of Mabillon. 11 3 12 

7. Anastasius, Platina, etc 12 1 11 

8. Baronius, Bellarmine, and Labbe 12 7 2 

Clement. 

1. Second Catalogue of Mabillon. 6 1 4 

2- M. Pagi 8 

3. First Catalogue of Mabillon 8 10 1 

4. Platina 9 2 10 

5. Baronius, Genebrard, etc 9 6 7 

6. Pontifical of Damasus 9 11 10 

7. Catalogue of IV. Century 9 H 12 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 443 



Ajstacletus. 

1. Anastasius, Platina, and Genebrard . . 

2. Ciaconius 



Tears. 



9 
9 
9 
12 
12 
12 
12 
14 




3. Baronius and Labbe 



4. M. Pagi. 



5. Onuplirius. 



6. Catalogue of VI. Century 

7. Catalogue of IV. Century 



8. Catalogue of VIII. Century 



10 



According to the lowest of these estimates the four 
men occupied the chair twenty-one years, eight months, 
and seventeen days; according to the highest estimate 
fifty-two years and six days— a difference of thirty years, 
three months, and nineteen days.* The highest esti- 
mate would place the episcopate of Anacletus— assum- 
ing the Pontifical of Damasus to be correct— in A.D. 
143, or in the second year of Pius, the ninth bishop of 
Eome ! Yet, with these variations, contradictions, and 
absurdities in full view, Mr. Chapin records the year 
of the consecration and the year of the death of each 
of these men as if there could not be the slightest 
doubt concerning the matter. 

This is not an isolated case. The whole catalogue 
of the Popes of Eome is involved in more doubt and 
confusion than any event or series of events in his- 
tory. There are as many lists of the popes as there are 
writers who have investigated the subject. No man 
living can construct a catalogue of the popes and give 
a reasonable proof of its correctness. Tried by any 
rule or standard, there are difficulties and perplexities 
that it is impossible to remove or to solve. 

Of the tenth century, Baronius, the Koman Cath- 
olic annalist, say s^lW as an iron age, b arren of all 
*Histoire de la Papesse Jeanne, vol. ii., pp. 174, 177. 



444 The High-churchman Disarmed: 

goodness; a leaden age, abounding in all wickedness; 
and a dark age, remarkable above all the rest for the 
scarcity of writers and men of learning."* The con- 
fusion in the list of popes assigned to the tenth cent- 
ury is truly appalling. Even Mr. Chapin has failed 
to give us the day of the month of the ordination of 
eleven popes in this century. His remarkable exact- 
ness as to dates was at fault in this " dark age." But 
more than seven hundred years ago disorder and con- 
fusion rendered the task of writing a history of the 
popes a hopeless one. Ordericus Yitalis, the most 
intelligent and learned Englishman of his time, in 
the middle of the twelfth century, after giving a list 
of one hundred popes, up to Leo IV., A.D. 855, says: 
"^Respecting the forty popes who filled the apostolical 
see from the time of Leo IV. to the present time, I 
have not been able to discover any genuine accounts; 
I shall therefore venture to say but little about them. 
. . . Thus, for nearly a hundred and ten years, eleven 
popes filled the apostolical see of whom I have been 
hitherto unable to discover either the genealogies or 
the time of their elevation or the date of their deaths." f 
It must be remembered that this writer is pronounced 
by M. Guizot to be the most careful, as he was the 
most voluminous, writer of his age. He devotes sixty 
pages to the catalogue of one hundred popes, but 
two pages suffice for the succession from A.D. 885 to 
1142. He omits fifteen popes that are found in other 
lists, and the order of his catalogue agrees with no 
other. 

Florence of Worcester, a writer who preceded Vi- 

*Baronius: Annals, 900. f Ordericus Vitalis, Ecclesiastical His- 
tory of England and Normandy, vol. i., p. 370. 



A Defense of Oar Methodist Fathers. 4A5 



talis twenty or thirty years, brings his catalogue of 
the popes up to the year 1118. This list was known 
to Ordericus, for he mentions the work in which it is 
found. But Florence has only the names of the popes, 
the dates being supplied by other hands. The En- 
glish editor of Florence of Worcester, in giving this 
catalogue, says: "There is so much confusion in the 
list between John, in 972, and Clement II., in 1046, 
that Blair's is substituted."'-" Now, it is precisely in 
regard to these very popes that Yitalis could discover 
nothing. There is a partial agreement between Flor- 
ence and Ordericus, but they differ to the extent of ten, 
eleven, or fifteen popes from other and later writers. 
Who can settle these differences, when they baffled 
the skill of learned men who lived in the ages nearest 
to the persons whom they endeavor to portray? 

There would indeed seem to be a species of fatal- 
ity connected with this subject. Mr. Chapin, the 
champion of High-church principles, whose display 
of references is exceedingly imposing, has given chap- 
ter and section and page of his authorities. His mi- 
nuteness and particularity, giving the very day of the 
w r eek and month in which some of the most dubious 
" consecrations " took place, will amuse anyone who 
ventures to take up his challenge and examine for 
himself. But, for all that, he is wholly unable to tell 
a straight tale in his own pages. In Chapin's list No. 
141 is John XVII. Two names preceding we find 
John XY. Between these are Gregory Y. and Syl- 
vester II. Now, it is evident that there ought to be 
a John XYI. if we have a John XVII. But where is 
the sixteenth John? Chapin makes no reply. But 
* Florence of Worcester, p. 414. note, 



446 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



the industrious reader will turn to one of Mr. Clia- 
pin's authorities, Bower's " History of the Popes.' ' * In 
that work will be found the statement that Gregory V. 
was a young man, only twenty-four years of age, and 
quite timid; that he was driven out of Eome by one 
of the periodical revolutions there, and one Philaga- 
thes was raised to the papacy, taking the name of John 
XVI. The runaway Gregory found the Emperor Otho 
coming to Eome with his army, and there John, the 
intruder, was captured, his eyes put out, his nose cut 
off, and his tongue torn out. In this horrible condi- 
tion he was obliged to " do penance " for his audacity; 
but his triumphant rival, Gregory, lived only three 
years to enjoy his victory. 

Now, why is this man called John XVI.? If he 
was an anti-pope, why give him a number among the 
true popes? Is it not as plain as the daylight that 
this man had no lawful title to the papal chair? But 
the papal chair, like the Eoman doctrine of baptism, 
is an affair whose virtue is ex opere operato. He who 
sits in the chair becomes a pope of some kind; and 
therefore the pope who followed Sylvester was called 
John XVII., and his successor John XVIII. 

But Mr. Chapin has either copied a faulty list of 
the popes without examination, and therefore he is no 
guide in matters of history, or he has willfully sinned 
against his own principles, but for what object it is 
difficult to see. In the case of the Johns, he num- 
bers a man wrongfully, while he excludes one of the 
Johns from the list of popes. In other words, he 
allows the number, but excludes the man. He has done 
the same thing with one of the Leos. No. 127 is 



* Bower, vol. v., p. 134. 



~A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 447 



Leo YLL, and No. 150 is Leo IX., while there is no 
Leo VUL in his list. There was such a pope, how- 
ever, lawfully elected, duly consecrated, and he died in 
the papal palace. That this is the true state of the 
case, Mr. Bower affirms* Octavianus, a youth of 
eighteen years, entered the Yatican by force, was 
raised to the chair, and took the name of John XII. 
He made war upon his neighbor princes, but was de- 
feated; and after several years of varied diplomacy 
he excited the ill-will of so many princes and ecclesi- 
astics that they met in council, summoned him to re- 
sign; and, upon his refusal, they deposed him, and 
elected Leo YIIL, who was ordained on December 6, 
963. This pope was as legally elected as any man 
who had occupied the chair at any time ; but the de- 
posed Pope purchased the good-will of the Romans, 
entered the city, and drove out Leo YIIL John held 
a council in Rome, deposed Leo, and suspended the' 
bishops that had ordained him. On the death of John, 
the Romans, persisting in rebellion, chose Benedict 
Y. The Emperor marched to Rome with an army, 
to whom the Romans surrendered. A council was 
called, Benedict was deposed, and he publicly begged 
the pardon of Pope Leo and the Emperor. Peace 
being restored, Leo was recognized by all parties, and 
died in possession of the chair. 

Notwithstanding these facts, Mr. Chapin places 
John, the usurper, and Benedict, the false pope, in 
the list, and excludes Leo YIIL, a bishop regularly 
elected and canonically ordained. Why is this? It 
is because he has copied the list of popes as it is gen- 
erally received by Roman Catholic writers of this day. 



* History of the Popes, Anno 956, cf seq. 



448 The Ii igh-ehurojiman Disarmed: 



It is a matter of no moment to Romanists to exclude 
Leo VIII. from their list, but he was once numbered 
and acknowledged by them. As they have seen proper 
to discard him from the chair, they are compelled to 
preserve the number of his pontificate in order to pre- 
vent still greater confusion. For example: if John 
XVII. had not recognized John XVI. as a time pope, 
he would not have taken the number XVII. As he 
did take that number, and hence John XVI. was con- 
sidered by his contemporaries as a true pope, the prin- 
ciples of Mr. Chapin compel him to place this name 
upon his list. But if he did that, his infallible suc- 
cession would differ from the Eoman list, and there- 
fore, to preserve a show of episcopal succession in 
Eome, he adopts the errors and blunders of the Eoman 
Catholic writers. By examining the list of Mr. Chapin 
the reader will find no less than five of these cases. 
Benedict X., Boniface VII., John XVI. and John XX., 
and Leo VIII. are omitted, but their successors are 
numbered as if the omitted names appeared in their 
proper order. The Eoman Church, by the stroke of 
the pen of Leo XIII., can determine that there shall 
be counted two, ten, or twenty popes in a given cent- 
ury; but High-churchmen have bound themselves to 
a theory which requires proof of actual succession in, 
and legal title to, the office, or their boasted chain falls 
into a hundred broken links. 

These are illustrations of the errors, contradictions, 
and absurdities in Chapin's "Primitive Church" in 
the list of the bishops of Eome. But these are only a 
few instances of gross errors. There are many more. 
Within a period of less than two hundred years Mr. 
Chapin has omitted several popes who, according to 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 449 

Bower, Lis own authority, are rightfully numbered 
among the Koman pontiffs, and he has inserted several 
who had no claim, legal or moral, to the papal chair. 
He has given dates with a positiveness that implied 
certainty, where there is no possibility of determining 
any thing more than the Koman Catholic "probable 
opinion." And yet, upon guesses, conjectures, and a 
vigorous exercise of confident assertions, he under- 
takes to establish a theory which degrades sixty thou- 
sand ministers in the United States, and deprives fifty 
millions of people of the Christian ordinances. 

The common sense of mankind attaches great im- 
portance to the adage Falsus in uno,fcilsus in omnibus — 
false in one point, unreliable in all. This is true of 
those who occupy the attitude of teachers, and espe- 
cially of those who presume to challenge the criticism 
of society in the advocacy of a dogma which is ob- 
noxious to the Christian law of love. If a man pro- 
fesses to teach the truth, and does not know that the 
assertions he makes are founded in truth, or if he has 
not exercised ordinary patience in discovering the 
truth, he forfeits the confidence of those whom he pro- 
fesses to instruct. 

Mr. Chapin has made some very bold assertions con- 
cerning the lines of succession from Canterbury, Aries, 
Lyons, Ephesus, etc. He does not consider the Bo- 
man line essential by any means, as— to use a phrase 
of another writer of his Church— the British Church, 
or the Church of England, is autocejohalous, carries 
its own head, and need not seek one in Lyons, Borne, 
or Ephesus. By this we understand that it is capable 
of proof that an apostle planted Christianity in Brit- 
ain, ordained bishops there, and this episcopal succes- 
29 



450 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



sion is a fact, a demonstrable fact, at this day. But 
a close examination of Mr. Chapin's authorities in 
other lists of "succession" will prove as disastrous 
to his credibility as this brief review of his papal 
line. 

To the succession from Canterbury we turn with 
deeper interest, because the sources of information 
are equally abundant, while a greater degree of im- 
portance attaches to the result. It is a matter of no 
moment to the Romanists whether episcopal succes- 
sion can be proved or not. Eoman "apostolical suc- 
cession" is not in a line of bishops, but in the papal 
chair. Legal election, canonical induction, and actual 
possession of the chair are the three points of the 
Roman law. The last of the three, in the dark ages, 
atoned for any fault or flaw in the other legal re- 
quirements. A pope being supreme in the Church, 
he could make or mend any enactment, and supply 
any virtue for any cause. But High-churchmen can- 
not occupy that ground. To them a system must take 
the place of a man. A system that is a species of 
machinery having many parts, like the works of a 
clock, arranged, set in motion, by Christ and his apos- 
tles, that will never need repairs or reconstruction 
until the great day of final account to the Lord of 
all. So intricate is this machinery that its preserva- 
tion would require a greater number of stupendous 
miracles than those that were wrought by the Son of 
man when he sojourned upon the earth. Miracles 
too, as Archbishop Whately has suggested, that chal- 
lenge the divine polity — not in its material, but in its 
moral order. What greater miracle can there be than 
the transmission of a spiritual gift through the hands 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 451 



of the vilest wretches that have disgraced humanity? 
N ot an occasional apostate only, but scores that form 
an ''uninterrupted succession'" in all vileness and de- 
pravity and beastliness. The doctrine that degrades 
the gospel by compelling the transmission of the gift 
that makes what Bishop Hobart calls " a dispenser of 
salvation through the hands of drunkards, robbers, 
and murderers for a series of years or ages cannot be 
of God. 

In the list of archbishops of Canterbury, the thirty- 
second from Augustine, according to Mr. Chapin's list, 
is "Stigand, consecrated Bishop of Helsham 1040, 
translated to Winchester 1015, and to Canterbury 
1052." All this appears to be quite regular and ca- 
nonical, except the fact that only one bishop seems to 
be concerned in the act of consecration. The usual 
air of confidence prevails in the foot-notes. Refer- 
ences are made to the Saxon Chronicle, Malmesbury, 
Henry of Huntingdon, Hoveden. and Matthew Paris. 
The last of these authors may be dismissed at once, 
because he begins his chronicle in 1235, and never 
mentions Stigand. It is Roger of Wendover to whom 
Mr. Chapin ought to refer. But the reader, book in 
hand, will find some difficulty in verifying the refer- 
ences. The Saxon Chronicle mentions Stigand, but 
it does not say that he was " consecrated " ; in 1040, or 
•'■'translated'" in 1045 to Winchester or elsewhere. 
William of IMalmesbury. Hoveden, and Henry of 
Huntingdon, do indeed refer to Stigand, but not one 
of the statements made in the text can be justified by 
the authors quoted. 

'■'Bishop " Stigand was a notorious character in his 
time. He was "blessed" as the Bishop of East An- 



The Highrchurchman Disarmed: 



gles, or Elmham, in 1043 * Aspiring to a higher, and 
especially to a richer see, he "invaded" the bishopric 
of Winchester^ Taking advantage of the weakness 
of the King— Edward— he became involved in a series 
of intrigues which ended in the banishment of Rob- 
ert, Archbishop of Canterbury. He finally purchased 
that see for himself, while still holding the bishopric 
of Winchester. J Stigand "invaded the Archbish- 
opric of Canterbury," says Malmesbury, " a prelate 
of notorious ambition, who sought after honors too 
keenly, and who, through desire of a higher dignity, 
deserting the bishopric of the South Saxons, had oc- 
cupied Winchester, which he held with the archbish- 
oric."§ It is easy to understand how he "invaded" 
Canterbury. Matthew of Westminster tells us it was 
"by circumventing the simplicity of King Edward." 
He had helped to drive out the true archbishop, and 
he spared no pains to secure the place for himself. 
Stigand was a " gifted " man. He cultivated the good 
graces of King Edward's mother, and encouraged her 
in her penurious views and conduct toward her son. 
For this reason Edward, on coming to the throne, 
"translated" Stigand out of the bishopric of the East- 
Angles, and sent him adrift. But he was a courtier 
and a politician. In a short time he had his first bish- 
opric restored, and had "invaded" another. Harde- 
canute "died as he stood at his drink," says the An- 
glo-Saxon Chronicle, |! and his son Edward was a weak 
man in every sense. The old archbishop, Eadsine, 
was growing too feeble to perform his duties, and 

-Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, An. 1043. f Matthew of Westminster, 
vol. L, An. 1052. J Ibid. § William of Malmesbury, b. ii., c. 13. 
|| Anno 1042. 



A Defense of Our Methodis* Fathers. 



453 



Stigand wanted the place. Nevertheless, Robert the 
Norman got the appointment after Eadsine's death, 
but there was a chance for the Bishop of Winchester. 
The Frenchmen and the Englishmen were seldom at 
peace, and it was easy to involve the country in war. 
Robert; the Norman fled, and Stigand captured the see.* 
What the old chronicles call "invasion" Mr. Chapin 
calls " translation." Stigand was " translated " to Can- 
terbury — that is, he paid down a round sum to the 
King's courtiers, and he flattered the weak-minded 
monarch, and courted the good- will of young Harold, 
who soon after received a crown from ' 'Archbishop " 
Stigand, and lost it on the field of battle, where Will- 
iam the Norman won it in 1066. 

No sooner did William the Conqueror enter the 
country in triumph than Archbishop Stigand came 
to render obedience and profess the profound senti- 
ments of loyalty that filled his bosom. He was will- 
ing to exchange any amount of loyalty for a comfort- 
able share of security.^ The Norman duke — not yet 
a king — readily entertained the proposition, and Stig- 
and went home rejoicing. He had petitioned the 
Pope for the bishop's pall, but in vain, until the anti- 
pope Benedict sent him one. But this pope was de- 
posed, and Stigand intended to use the new monarch 
to effect his purposes. 

William I. was a man of civil as well as military 
genius. He was soon made acquainted with the course 
of Stigand. His purchase of Elmsham first for him- 
self and then for his brother; then the invasion of 
Winchester, and the usurpation of Canterbury, were 
reported to the conqueror. As soon as he was informed 
^Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, An. 1052. f Ordericus Vitalis, L, p. 489. 



454: 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



of these facts, William refused to be " consecrated" by 
Stigand. It was the office of the Archbishop of Can- 
terbury, but the Archbishop of York performed the 
ceremony. Stigand was under the interdict of Pope 
Alexander for presuming to usurp the See of Can- 
terbury in the life-time of the lawful incumbent* 
In 1070 a great synod was held at Winchester, in 
which Stigand was tried, convicted, and deprived of 
all his honors.t He was convicted of holding two 
"sees" at the same time, of usurpation, and of wick- 
edly putting on the "pall" of the exiled Archbishop 
Robert. For receiving a pretended "pall" from the 
usurper Benedict of Rome, and a variety of crimes 
and misdemeanors, he was condemned to perpetual im- 
prisonment. | "Stigand, moreover," says William of 
jlalmesbury, "'in the time of King William, degraded 
by the Roman cardinals and condemned to perpetual 
imprisonment, could not fill up the measure of his in- 
satiable avidity even in death. For on his decease a 
small key was discovered among his secret recesses, 
which, on being applied to the lock of a chamber-cab- 
inet, gave evidence of papers describing immense 
treasures, and in v-hich were noted both the quality 
and the quantity of the precious metals which this 
greedy pilferer had hidden on all his estates." § The 
same author gives us a dismal picture of the English 
clergy at that period. "The clergy," he says, "con- 
tented with a very slight degree of learning, could 

-Ordericus Vltalis, iv., p. 52; Florence of Worcester, p. 163; 
William of Malmesbury, pp. 221, 281; Matthew of Westminster, 
vol. ii., p. 2 ; Roger de Hoveden, vol. i., p. 139 ; Rapin : History of 
England, vol. ii., p. 232. 

t Hoveden, L, p. 143. i William of Malmesbury^ p. 221. ? Ibid., 
p. 221. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 455 



scarcely stammer out the words of the sacraments; 
and a person who understood grammar was an object 
of wonder and astonishment."* 

Now, this is the case of Archbishop Stigand as de- 
scribed by the authors referred to by Mr. Chapin. 
What shall we say of it? Was Stigand a true bish- 
op, or was he a pretender only? There is no proof 
that he was canonically ordained. On the contrary, it 
seems to be a clear case of usurpation. In the synod 
of 1070, says Ordericus Yitalis, "Stigand, who had 
been already excommunicated, was deposed. His 
hands were stained by perjury and homicide, and he 
had not entered on his archiepiscopal functions by 
the lawful door, having been raised to his dignity by 
the two bishops of Norfolk and Winchester by the 
steps of an infamous ambition, and by supplanting 
others." f According to the theory of High-church- 
men, a man may buy a bishopric, and supplant any 
one by any methods; he may stain his soul with per- 
jury and his hands with murder — all these things do 
not affect his official character, we are told. But what 
if he be ordained by only tiro instead of three bish- 
ops? Will that serious uncanonical fact break the 
chain of apostolical succession ? If not, then the can- 
ons are valueless; and if the chain is broken the dis- 
aster is a serious one, for eighteen years had elapsed 
between Robert's flight and Lanfranc's consecration. 

That the episcopate of Stigand was an " invasion " 
even Mr. Chapin confesses; for he does not state by 
whom he was ordained, but parades the canonical or- 
dination of Lanfranc with more than ordinary care. 
In this he has followed the old chroniclers. "After 



* William of Malmesbufy, p. 279. f Ordericus Yitalis, vol. ii., p. 31. 



45(3 



The HigJi-ejwrcJiman Disarmed: 



a canonical election and lawful consecration/' Lan- 
franc was enthroned in the See of Canterbury. Le 
Neve, the standard authority upon the subject of the 
succession in the English hierarchy, says: " Stigand, 
Bishop of Winchester, is reckoned the next successor 
(in Canterbury ) in 1052; but he was never made so by 
any other authority than his own presumption, in- 
truding himself into this see during the displeasure 
of the King toward his predecessor; but ( not believ- 
ing his title to be sufficient to maintain him in it, if 
questioned) he was wise enough not to resign Win- 
chester, which he was ] awful bishop of, but held both 
together as long as he could— viz., till 1069, in which 
year he was deprived of both."* The result of the 
examination is that Stigand was no archbishop, mat 
he fraudulently held a position to which he had no 
title, and thus for eighteen years a gap is made in the 
"succession from Canterbury." 

Notwithstanding the labors of Godwin and Dodweil, 
the whole subject of personal succession at Canter- 
bury and everywhere else remains hopelessly con- 
fused. Mr. Chapin indulges in the most absolute 
statements, asserting the impossibility of a "break;"' 
and yet, to maintain his line of Canterbury, he resorts 
to guesses and conjectures. The canonical "three" 
consecrators do not appear from Augustine, in 596, to 
Tatwine, in 731; and following Tatwine, Mr. Chapin 
says: "Xothelni, consecrated by three bishops, a* it 
would seem, at a national synod, 735." For this infor- 
mation he refers the reader to "Saxon Chronicle, 54; 
Hoved. Ann., i., 230." This is exceedingly amusing. 
The Saxon Chronicle mentions not a syllable about a 
* Le Neve : Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanse, pi 4. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



457 



"national synod" in 735. Under the year 736 the 
Chronicle says: "This year Archbishop Nothelm re- 
ceived his pall from the Bishop of the Romans." 
Hoveden's Annals begin with the year 732, and under 
735 he says.. "Nothelm was ordained Archbishop of 
Canterbury." but by whom does not appear. Not a 
hint is given concerning a "national synod." The 
reference "i., 230" in any edition of the book would 
take the record forward to the twelfth century, where- 
as tne true reference is included in the first page of 
the Annals. Yet the learned author tells us "refer- 
ence is given to che authorities to enable him who 
chooses to examine for himself." * The author of this 
complicated tissue of assertions without proof is re- 
duced at last to " as it would seem." 

A critical examination of Mr. Chapin's references 
will convince the reader that Mr. Chapin never saw 
the books to which he refers. He has relied upon 
other writers, and has adopted their statements. The 
proof is abundant; indeed, the first reference fur- 
nishes an illustration. "Augustine, consecrated by 
Virgilius, twenty-fourth Bishop of Aries, assisted by 
Aetherius, thirty-fourth Bishop of Lyons, A.D. 596." 
The references are: "Becle, i, 27, 28; Hen. Hunt. 
Hist, iii., 184. Gal. Chris, i, p. 540; iv, p. 35." This 
last book— being a work of the Benedictines, and writ- 
ten with specific designs— we dismiss. It is not an 
authority. On referring to book i, chapter 27, of 
Becle's History, we find that Augustine was conse- 
crated by Aetherius, Archbishop of Aries, and not by 
Virgilius. Nothing is said of the latter bishop, ex- 
c ept in chap ter 28^-whj ch contains a letter of the Pope 
* Chapin: Primitive Church, p. 296. 



458 



The Higk-ch urcli m an Disarmed : 



to Virgilius, successor to Aetherrag, In a foot-note, 
however, the editor says this is a mistake, and that 
Augustine was consecrated by Virgilius and not by 
Aetherius. Le Neve contradicts the editor of Bede, 
however, and says that Augustine was consecrated 
by Aetherius, Archbishop of Aries.- But not a word 
is said about the presence of Aetherius to assist 
Virgilius. They were both archbishops, and Mr. 
Ghapin calls them bishops only. Even this is not 
all. The next reference to Henry of Huntingdon 
amounts to nothing. Henry copied his history from 
that of Bede, and is not, therefore, an independent 
witness. Nevertheless, as he is referred to, the read- 
er will find in Henry of Huntingdon, book iii., par- 
agraph 6, the following words: "And now Augustine, 
the man of God, repaired to Aries, and was conse- 
crated archbishop by Aetherius, archbishop of that 
city, in compliance with the command of our lord the 
Pope." The question is not whether Augustine was 
ordained by Virgilius or Aetherius, but what do the 
references — Bede and Henry of Huntingdon — say 
about it. They say that Augustine was consecrated 
by Aetherius, Archbishop of Aries, and not a syllable 
is said about an assisting bishop. Yet, to these au- 
thorities Mr. Ghapin refers to prove that Augustine 
was ordained by two bishops. Is it not evident that 
Mr. Chapin never read the pages of the Venerable 
Bede and Henry of Huntingdon? 

It would be a formidable task to follow Mr. Chapin 
through the array of references which bristles at the 
bottom of his pages. But a sufficient number has 
been examined to prove that he has taken his refer- 
eve: Fasti Ecclesiw Anglicana\ p. 1. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 459 



encesfrorn Godwin and Dugdale without attempting to 
verify them. This is always a dangerous practice, but 
it becomes highly censurable in one who undertakes to 
establish a theory which requires the utmost exact- 
ness in its proofs. Something probably is due to the 
errors of the press, and these are omitted from criti- 
cism in these pages. But the following is an error 
of a graver kind. In 1038, Mr. Chapin tells us, "Ed- 
sin, Eclsius, or Elsin," was translated to Canterbury. 
His references are four: Saxon Chronicle, Hoveden, 
Henry of Huntingdon, and Dr. (Godwin's "PrsBSulis 
Anglhe." As Dr. Godwin wrote in 1601, and was striv- 
ing to make history for the " apostolical succession," his 
work is not authority. We have, then, only three writ- 
ers, or three books, for references. The Saxon Chron- 
icle, Anno 1033, says "Bishop Eadsine, succeeded to 
the archbishopric " of Canterbury. Roger de Hoveden, 
Anno 1038, says "Eadsy, the King's chaplain, succeed- 
ed Egelnoth as Archbishop " of Canterbury. Henry 
of Huntingdon, Anno 1010, says that Eadsige suc- 
ceeded Egelnoth. Here are three of Mr; Chapin's 
witnesses, and every one gives a different name. He 
gives us three names to choose from — Edsin, Edsius, 
or Elsin — but the names of Mr. Chapin do not agree 
with those of his authorities. This wonderful man 
has several other names, for he is called Elsinus by 
Dugdale, and Elfsy by the Saxon Chronicle in Anno 
1032. Can anv one who is capable of reasoning be- 
lieve in the "canonical consecration" of a man whose 
name is spelled eight different ways, and about whom 
the authorities differ so widely that they cannot be 
reconciled? Godwin and Dugdale say it was Elfsy, 
Bishop of Winchester- Chapin says Edsin, Edsius, 



460 The High-dim % ch man Disarmed: 



or Elsin, Bishop of Winchester. The Anglo-Saxon 
Chronicle tells us that Elfsy, Bishop of Winchester, 
died in 1032, and the Bishop of Winchester living in 
1038 was Alwyn; and therefore Mr. Chapin's story is 
discredited. Besides, one of his witnesses — Koger de 
Hoveden — says that Eadsy was not Bishop of Win- 
chester, but the King's chaplain, when he was made 
archbishop. Boger of Wendover, Anno 1038, says 
"Athelnoth, Archbishop of Canterbury, was succeeded 
by Eadsy."* Within four pages of the "Flowers of 
History " we have specimens of the utter absence of 
care in the spelling of names. Unless specially desig- 
nated by some known title or place, we have no means 
of establishing the identity of these historical char- 
acters. And here we have a tangled thicket. A man 
with eight names, a King's chaplain, or a bishop of a 
see filled by another man, transferred to Canterbury, 
and we are asked to believe that this is uninterrupted 
transmission of apostolical authority! 

* Roger of Wendover, vol. i., p. 302. 



Chapter XXIII. 



Succession of Powers, not of Persons — Unless Bishops Succeed One 
Another in Authority, a List of Names Proves Nothing — Dr. 
Stillingfleet — Archons of Athens and Sparta — Equality of Au- 
thority, but Precedence in the Chief — The Eight to Ordain — A 
Test — Ordination Among the Jews— Elders Ordained Elders — 
Bishop of the Synagogue— Origin of the Episcopal Office — Not of 
Divine Appointment but Providential Arrangement — Benjamin 
of Tudela and the Chief of the Captivity— Ordained by the Khalif 
— Levites Ordained by Laymen— Increase of Churches Called for 
Chief Pastors — Alexander and the Patriarchate — Patriarchs Or- 
dained by Presbyters — Testimony of Eutychius — Renaudot — Je- 
rome — France, Geneva, Hungary, Germany, the Waldenses, Hol- 
land, Denmark, Sweden, and Great Britain, all have Presbyterial 
Orders — Testimony of Thomas Becon, Cranmer's Chaplain — 
Chrysostom — Roman Bishops Not Always Ordained — Augustine, 
Eusebius — Keble, Jewel, Hooker, Bancroft, Mason, Usher, Goode, 



TJT suppose it to be granted that there is a line 



J ) of names representing real persons, and that 

these persons were called "bishops" from the times 
of the apostles, what does it prove? Only a succes- 
sion of person*, and not of powers. "If, therefore," 
says Bishop Stillingfleet, "those that would prove a 
succession of apostolical power can only produce a 
list and catalogue of names in apostolical Churches, 
without any evidence of what power they had, they 
apparently fail of proving the thing in question, which 
is not whether there might be found out a list of per- 
sons in many Churches derived from the apostles' 
times, but whether those persons did enjoy by way of 
peculiarity and appropriation to themselves that pc 




(4G1) 



462 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



er which the apostles had over many churches while 
they lived. Now this the mere succession will never 
prove, which will best appear by some parallel in- 
stances. At Athens, after they grew weary of their 
ten years Apyoweg (chiefs), the people chose nine ev- 
ery year to govern the affairs of the commonwealth. 
These nine enjoyed a parity of power among them- 
selves, and therefore had a place where they consulted 
together about matters of state, which was called 
ErparriYLoy (the general's residence, or tribunal), as De- 
mosthenes, Plutarch, and others, tell us. Now, al- 
though they enjoyed this equality of power, yet one 
of them had greater dignity than the rest, and there- 
fore was called Apywv (chief) by way of excellency; and 
his name only was set in the public records of that 
year, and therefore was called Apywv e-wvofwq (the ar- 
chon who gave his name to the year of his office), and 
the year was reckoned from him, as Pausanias and 
Julius Pollux inform us. Here we see now the suc- 
cession clear in one single person, and yet no superi- 
ority of power in him over his colleagues. The like 
may be observed among the Ephori and Bidiaei at 
Sparta. The number of the Ephori was always five, 
from their first institution by Lycurgus, and not nine, 
as the Greek etymologist imagines. These enjoyed 
likewise a parity of power among them; but among 
these, to give name to the year, they made choice of 
one who was called E-wwpoq here too, as the Apywv at 
Athens, and him they called -pm^rwraroq e<popwv (the 
principal of the Ephori) ag Plutarch tells us. Where 
we have the very name -pozarwq (principal chief) at- 
tributed to him that had only his primacy of order 
without any superiority of power, which is used by 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 463 



Justin Martyr of the president of assemblies among 
the Christians. Now, from hence we may evidently 
see that mere succession of some single persons named 
above the rest, in the successions in apostolical church- 
es, cannot enforce any superiority of power in the 
persons so named above others supposed to be as joint 
governors of the churches with them."* 

The principle involved in the controversy is clearly 
shown when we have selected one ministerial act as a 
test of the power derived from the apostles. Let us 
take the right to ordain as a test question. It is the 
only function of a bishop common to a Methodist, a 
Protestant Episcopal, and a Church of England bish- 
op. We get the custom of ordaining to office from 
the Jews, and we cannot understand the early history 
of the Christian Church without a thorough knowl- 
edge of the customs of the synagogue. Let us take 
the city of Jerusalem for a starting-point. It is said 
that there were four hundred and eighty-one syna- 
gogues in Jerusalem in our Saviour's time. Ten per- 
sons formed a congregation among the Jews, so that 
the presumption is there was a like multiplication of 
places of worship in all of the principal towns through- 
out the Roman empire. The conversion of five thou- 
sand souls in a few weeks at Jerusalem necessitating 
the division of the Church-members into societies, 
perhaps ten or twenty places of worship would be 
sufficient. For each of these congregations a pastor 
would be required ; and this pastor would be a shep- 
herd, a bishop, or overseer of the souls committed to 
his charge. Twenty of these pastors collected to- 
gether would form a species of synod, convention, or 



* Irenicum, p. 324. 



464 



The High-cliurchman Disarmed: 



conference to consider the interests and welfare of the 
Church in the city. Here we see the origin of epis- 
copacy. One man could oversee a Church of one or 
of five hundred members, but the attention needed by 
the members of one Church from its pastor would be 
needed by all the churches in the city from a general 
pastor. Thus the rights that were common to all the 
elders in the Church came after awhile to be appropri- 
ated, in some particulars only, to the chief pastor. To 
receive, baptize, and confirm members of the Church 
were duties belonging to the pastoral office and in- 
herent in it. But who shall set apart pastors for the 
churches themselves ? 

It is evident that the increase of the number of Chris- 
tians would increase the difficulties in the pastoral 
care, and therefore the qualifications of pastors soon 
became a question of great importance. Although any 
elder had the right to ordain an elder, according to the 
Jewish law of ordination, it is evident that this right, 
unrestricted, must produce a harvest of evil. To pre- 
serve the dignity, and therefore the usefulness, of the 
ministerial character, only rightly qualified persons 
should be ordained to the pastoral work, and it would 
be unsafe to trust every man with this power. Very 
soon it happened that the churches, or congregations, 
preserving the right to select their pastors, delegated 
the power to ordain them to one who was the presi- 
dent of the meeting of elders or presbyters. The eld- 
ers yielded, for the sake of good order and permanent 
government, a right inherent in the ministerial office. 

It is probable that all the officers of the synagogue 
were ordained. We know that the elders or presby- 
ters of the Sanhedrim were set apart to that high 



A Defense of Oar Methodist Fathers. 465 



office by the imposition of hands. From a writer of 
the twelfth century we have positive testimony in re- 
gard to the principal officers of the synagogue. Ben- 
jamin of Tudela's "Itinerary" is quoted by Bishop 
Stillingneet to prove that the " Chief of the Captiv- 
ity " residing at Bagdad authorized the synagogues of 
the Jews in the East to elect and ordain their minis- 
ters.* This would prove that the power of ordination 
was delegated to each synagogue. But this appears 
to be an error growing out of the defective manuscript 
employed in the edition of L'Empereur. Since the 
days of Bishop Stillingneet, a better text of the Babbi 
Benjamin of Tudela has been published and edited by 
Asher. The Kabbi Benjamin, speaking of the " Chief 
of the Captivity" in Bagdad, B. Daniel Ben Chisdai, 
and his authority over the synagogues of Mesopota- 
mia and the greater part of Asia, says: "Permission 
is granted by the Prince of Captivity to all the Jew- 
ish congregations of these different countries to elect 
rabbis and ministers, all of whom appear before him 
in order to receive consecration and the permission to 
officiate, upon which occasions presents and valuable 
gifts are offered to him, even from the remotest coun- 
tries." f Keferring to the word "consecration " in the 
sentence just quoted, the editor has a note, which says: 
"The ceremony of consecration performed by the 
Prince of Captivity consisted in his laying his hands 
on the heads of the candidates." Thus it appears 
that the Eastern Jews, as late as the twelfth century, 
had an office resembling that of the Christian bishop. 
But it will surprise the reader to learn that this Jew- 
ish "bishop " was ordained to his office by the Moham- 

* Irenicum, p. 266. f R. Ben. Tudela, vol. i., p. 103. 
30 



466 The High-churcfamn Disarmed: 



medan klialif! "At the time of the installation of 
the Prince of Captivity," says Rabbi Benjamin, "he 
spends considerable sums in presents to the king, or 
khalif, his princes and nobles. The ceremony is per- 
formed by the act of the laying on of the hands of 
the king, or khalif; after which the Prince rides home 
from the king's abode to his own house, seated in a 
royal state carriage and accompanied by the sound of 
various musical instruments. He afterward lays his 
hands on the gentlemen of the university."'- This is 
surely a variety of ordainers and of ordinations! A 
Mohammedan ordains the Jew, and the Prince of the 
Captivity the professors in the university. But the 
"ordination" of the prince conferred by the khalif 
was purely a civil proceeding; for the khalif was not 
the chief of the Moslem religion, as the religious 
chief was styled the Imam. In any case, however, 
"episcopal succession" is out of the question here, 
considered from any point of view. Whether correct 
or not in regard to the absolute allegiance of all Jew- 
ish congregations to this "Prince of the Captivity," 
there can be no doubt that the Rabbi Benjamin has 
given, in the main, a correct account of this Jewish 
episcopacy. The chief minister was only a rabbi in 
order, a chief in rank. Selected by his brethren, they 
first consecrated him, and the chief of the State — the 
khalif — invested him with general authority in civil 
causes; and he, in turn, set apart the rabbis and min- 
isters chosen by the Jewish congregations. 

It is worthy of remark that the Hebrew word for 
"consecration" which is used by R. Benjamin occurs 
frequently in the Old Testament. In t wenty places 
*R Ben. Tudela, vol. i., p. 104. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 467 



it is translated by the Seventy by the same Greek word 
used for "the laying on of hands" in the New Testa- 
ment, but in four places only does it refer to setting a 
person apart for the duties of an office. One of these 
instances is the ordination of Joshua, referred to in 
Numbers xxvii. 18, 23, and Deuteronomy xxxiv. 9. 
Moses ordained Joshua to be his successor in the 
civil, not the ecclesiastical govern men t. In Numbers 
viii. 10, Moses is commanded to bring the Levites be- 
fore the Lord, and the children of Israel ordained them 
by the laying on of hands to their ministry for all 
time. Here we have a consecration performed by lay- 
men. It is very evident, then, that there was no grace 
conferred by the consecrator in any case. The allu- 
sion to Moses, in Deut. xxxiv. 9, is to be understood as 
descriptive of Joshua's character, not of any gift im- 
parted to the new leader by the hands of the old. 
"And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of 
wisdom, for [not because] Moses had laid his hands 
upon him." It was because of his fitness for the 
office that he was chosen, and the approbation of Mo- 
ses is assigned as proof incontestable that he was 
worthy and well qualified. No other interpretation 
of these words is agreeable to the sense of the text 
or to the nature and design of the office. Joshua had 
been trained, tried, and approved by the great law- 
giver, and the seal of his indorsement was the ordina- 
tion to be his successor by the imposition of hands. 
Grotius tells us that "all the rulers and elders of the 
synagogue were ordained by the imposition of hands, 
from whence the custom was translated into Chris- 
tianity."* The chezen, ove rseer, superintendent, bish- 
* Grotius, in Evang., p. 36. 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



op of the synagogue, was certainly a similar officer, in 
many respects, to the pastor of the church in the 
apostolic era. 

The connectional character of Christianity— slight at 
first,^ growing with every new conquest of the cross, 
and increasing as the ages developed toward the unity 
of interest and community of knowledge and power 
among Christians— must tend to produce the office of 
a general superintendent. The increase from one 
church to twenty in a city would cause a similar 
growth from one city to twenty in a district over 
whose affairs an overseer would be placed. Thus we 
have the origin of diocesan episcopacy, an institution 
impracticable if not impossible in the first century of 
the Christian era. Supervision, to be of any value, 
must be immediate, sympathetic, and regular. The 
superintendent or bishop must be near enough to the 
flock to understand their wants, and they must receive 
him as a brother beloved in the Lord, set over them 
for their profit and edification in all good works. 
Moreover, the visitation from place to place, so diffi- 
cult and uncertain in the first century, would modify 
the character of the episcopal office. A Methodist 
bishop living in the United States can attend an An- 
nual Conference in Northern India or in China with 
more ease and comfort, and in less time, than St. Paul 
could make a trip to Rome and return. 

All the officers of the synagogue that were needed 
by the Christian Church were adopted; and the life, 
the soul, of a pure and true gospel filled the outward 
forms that had been only the conservative power of 
divine truth. The Jew had much advantage every 
way. He had a house, a form of service, and a de- 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 469 



posit of truth— a seed frr-m which the tree might 

the service; the living, useful forms came to a new life 
and new employment. The members of the body of 
Christ were provided in the old law; the living Christ 
came and took possession of his temple, the soul of 

Perhaps the city of Alexandria will furnish us with 
the best illustration of the ease in hand, It was, next 
to Jerusalem, the stronghold of Jewish faith and phi- 
losophy. The practice of the Church of Alexandria 
for the three centuries nearest the apostles will clem- 
.onstrate at once the influence of the synagogue upon 
the Church, and the character or the form of Church 
government most agreeable to the Scriptures and best 
adapted to the wants of mankind. As this is an ex- 

Xew Testament and apostolical episcopacy so far as 
the right to ordain is concerned, the testimony will be 
complete and the sources of information definite and 



The evidence is from the pen of one of the Patri- 
archs of Alexandria, Entychius by name. He is giv- 
ing a sketch of the history of the Church of Alexan- 
dria, and after mentioning the preparatory labors of 
Mark the evangelist, he says: 

-Moreover, he appointed twelve presbyters with 
Hananias, who were to remain with the Patriarch, so 
that when the Patriarchate was vacant they might 
elect one of the twelve presbyters, upon whose head 
the* other eleven might place their hands and bless 
him [or, invoke a blessing upon him] and create him 
Patriarch, and then choose some excellent man and 



470 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



appoint him presbyter with themselves in the place of 
him who was thus made Patriarch, that thus there 
might always be twelve. Nor did this custom respect- 
ing the presbyters — namely, that they should create 
their Patriarchs from the twelve presbyters — cease at 
Alexandria until the times of Alexander, Patriarch of 
Alexandria, who was of the number of the 318 [bish- 
ops at Nice]. But he forbade the presbyters to create 
the Patriarch for the future, and decreed that when 
the Patriarch was dead the bishops should meet to- 
gether and ordain the Patriarch. Moreover, he de- 
creed that on a vacancy of the Patriarchate they 
should elect, either from any part of the country or 
from those twelve presbyters, or others, as circum- 
stances might prescribe, some excellent man and cre- 
ate him Patriarch. And thus that ancient custom by 
which the Patriarch used to be created by the presby- 
ters disappeared, and in its place succeeded the ordi- 
nance for the creation of the Patriarch by the bish- 
ops." * 

*The original is in Arabic, and the extract itself is from the Lat- 
in translation of the learned Selden. In order to present the case 
in all of its features, the Latin version is copied from "Goode's Pule 
of Faith and Practice: " 

"Constituit item Marcus Evangelista duodecim Presbyteros cum 
Hanania, qui nempe manerent cum Patriarcha, adeo ut cum vacaret 
Patriarchates, eligerent unum e duodecim Presbyteris cujus capiti 
reliqui undecim manus imponerent eumque benedicerent et Patri- 
archam eum crearent, et dein virum aliquem insignem eligerent eum- 
que Presbyterum secum constituerent loco ejus qui sic factus est Patri- 
archa, ut ita semper extarent duodecim. Nequedesiit Alexandria? in- 
stitutum hocde Presbyteris, ut scilicet Patriarchas crearent ex Presby- 
teris duodecim, usque ad tempora Alexandri Patriarchs Alexandrini 
qui fuit ex numero illo cccxviii. Is autem vetuit ne deinceps Patri- 
archam Presbyteri crearent. Et decrevit ut mortr.o Patriarcha con- 



A Defense of Oar Methodist Fathers. 471 



High-churchmen have been greatly exercised by 
this passage. They have exerted all the ingenuity 
possible to prove that the presbyters of Alexandria 
did not ordain the Patriarch, but elected him by the 
"lifting up of the hands." Some have gone so far as 
to place Mr. Chapin's "as it would seem" in the story 
to account for some invisible bishop, who laid his 
hands on the Patriarch elect after the twelve presby- 
ters had voted for him. But all these efforts are 
"lighter than vanity." It is useless to say that the 
Arabic word in the original for "laying on of hands" 
means also "to lift up the hands" to vote. This is 
true of the Greek word to ordain in the New Testa- 
ment, and proves nothing or too much. Besides, the 
important word in this extract has been placed in ital- 
ics. The presbyters of Alexandria created their Patri- 
arch, and a thousand bishops could do no more. No 
word in any language can express the definite, final, 
and absolute ordination of the Patriarch more strong- 
ly than the word create. It cannot admit of disputa- 
tion except among those who are determined not to 
listen to reason. 

The account given by Eutychius is fully corrobo- 
rated by Benaudot in his " History of the Patriarch- 
ate of Alexandria." After the death of Theonas the 
Patriarch, "the priests and the people were collected 

venirent Episcopi qui Patriarchal ordinarent. Deerevit item tit, 
vacante Patriarchate, eligerent sive ex quacimque regione, sive ex 
duodecim illis Presbyteris, sive aliis, ut res ferebat, virum aliquem 
eximinm, eumque Patriarcham crearent. Atque ita evanuit insti- 
tutum illud antiquius, quo creari solitus a Presbyteris Patriarclia, 
et sueeessit in' locum ejus decretum de Patriarclia ab Episcopis cre- 
ando." (Eutychius: Patr. Alex. Ecclesite suce orig. Ed. J. Selden. 
London, 1642; 4to. pp. 20-31.) 



472 



The Higli-ehurcJiman Disarmed: 



together at Alexandria, and laid their hands upon 
Peter (maniisque imposuisse super Petrum), his son 
and faithful disciple, a priest, and placed him in the 
Patriarchal throne of Alexandria, according to the 
command of Theonas, in the tenth year of the Empe- 
ror Diocletian." * 

The testimony of Jerome refers to the same fact, 
and its meaning cannot be misunderstood. After 
showing that bishop and presbyter are terms employed 
interchangeably in the Scriptures, he says: "After- 
ward one was chosen to be over the rest. This was 
done to prevent schism, lest each one drawing the 
Church of Christ after him should break it up. For 
at Alexandria also, from Mark the evangelist to the 
Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, the presbyters al- 
ways called one elected from among themselves 
and placed in a higher rank, their bishop; just as 
an army may constitute its general, or deacons may 
elect one of themselves, whom they know to be dil- 
igent, and call him archdeacon. For what does a 
bishop do, with the exception of ordination, which a 
presbyter may not do? " f 

Commenting upon these words of Jerome, the Rev. 
"William Goode, of Trinity College, Cambridge, says : 
"This passage, be it observed, does not take away 
from the episcopate its peculiar rights, but distinctly 
admits that ordination belongs to that office, and that 
its possessor has a higher rank than the presbyter; 
but at the same time it clearly maintains that, as it 
respects the sacerdotal character, there is no differ- 
ence between a presbyter and a bishop, the difference 

*Goode's Rule of Faith and Practice, vol. ii., p. 82. tEQeron., 
Ep. ad Evang. Ep,, 146. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathe 



473 



being only to be found in the ecclesiastical distribu- 
tion of the duties to be performed by them; and., what is 
still more to our purpose, that appointment to the epis- 
copal office by the presbyters of a Church is sufficient (as 
far as essentials are concerned") to entitle a presbyter to 
perform the duties of the episcopal function."* 

This is the ground upon which all the ministerial 
orders of the Protestant Churches stand. France, 
Geneva. Hungary. Germany, Denmark. Sweden, and 
Great Britain all are alike dependent upon presbyte- 
rial ordination for a Christian ministry. Xo pains 
was taken by the early reformers in England to pre- 
serve an episcopal succession. It was almost impos- 
sible to do so if they had made the effort. But Cran- 
rner and his colleagues did not believe in the necessity 
of a personal succession through eanonieally ordained 
bishops, and therefore no effort was made to preserve 
it. The proof is clear as the noonday. A number of 
questions were propounded to Archbishop Cranmer, 
four other bishops, and ten divines of distinction in 
the time of Henry Till.; and the answer of Thomas 
Cranmer, in his own handwriting, was examined by 
Bishop Stillingfleet. In answer to Ques. 12. Cranmer 
says: ,; In the New Testament, he that is appointed to 
be a bishop or a priest needeth no consecration by the 
Scripture, for election or appointing thereunto is suffi- 
cient. ; * + 

It is absurd to insist upon special efforts to secure 
that which was not considered essential. If bishops 
ordained by the Bomanists adhered to the Reforma- 
tion, it was well, but that was a mere incident. Xone 

-Eule of Faith a^d Practice, vol. ii., pp. So, 84. tlrenicun:. 
p. 415. 



474 



of then* adhered in France or Germany, but the Prot- 
estant Churches were regularly organized notwith- 
standing. To corroborate the liberal opinion of Arch- 
bishop Cranmer, we have the testimony of his chap- 
lain, Thomas Becon. After the death of Cranmer, 
and during the reign of Elizabeth, Thomas Becon 
published a volume with a preface dedicated to Arch- 
bishop Parker and twenty-two bishops of England. 
He advises them to be careful in selecting pastors for 
the churches, inasmuch as there were many pretend- 
ers and ignorant persons seeking for appointments as 
shepherds of the flock. 

" Therefore, to avoid all such unlearned and unapt 
persons," says Becon, "the custom in times past of 
choosing ministers is greatly to be commended, which 
was this: the whole parish, or the better part of them, 
where a pastor was wanted, assembled themselves to- 
gether certain days before the election, and conferred 
of the appointment of a new minister. The names 
of certain honest, grave, godly, wise, sober, zealous, 
constant, and learned men were prefixed, and set up 
in some notable place of the city or town, with a 
schedule or writing to declare that the men whose 
names were there entitled were appointed on such a 
day to be chosen ministers in the congregation of 
God; again, that if any man did know any fault or 
notable imperfection in them concerning their doc- 
trine or life, they should on such day be present, and 
object what they lawfully could. If no worthy objec- 
tion at the day appointed were made, then did the 
election proceed. But before the election, the parish 
being gathered together in the name of Christ, they 
gave themselves to fasting and prayer, and, a sermon 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



475 



made concerning both the office of the pastor and the 
duty of the parishioners, some other minister or minis- 
ters, with certain elders of that congregation, laid their 
hands upon the new chosen minister, wishing unto 
him the Spirit of God and the fruits of the same, by 
this means admitting him into the ministry without 
albe, vestment, cope, etc., and without docking, greas- 
ing, shaving, etc.; and thus, after thanks given to 
God, the congregation departed."* 

These words were written in 1564, and addressed to 
the bishops of England. He proves not only the 
election of the ministers by the churches themselves, 
but the ordination was performed by ministers occu- 
pying the same rank. Not a word is said about call- 
ing in a bishop to ordain. Becon alludes to the first 
and second centuries of the Church; for he quotes, in 
proof of his argument, from Cyprian, Origen, and 
Chrysostom. 

If we return to the days of these early "fathers" 
of the Church, we find the same views prevailing in 
the Greek and Latin churches. A work of the fourth 
century attributed to Ambrose says: "The apostle calls 
Timothy, created by him a presbyter, a bishop (for 
the first presbyters were called bishops), that when he 
departed the one that came next might succeed him. 
Moreover, in Egypt the presbyters confirm if a bish^ 
op is not present. But because the presbyters that 
followed began to be found unv-r Hhy to hold the pri- 
macy, the custom was altered; the council foreseeing 
that not order but merit ought to make a bishop, and 
that he should be appointed by the judgment of many 
priests, lest an unworthy person should rashly usurp 
'•■Early Works of Thomas Becon, p. 7. 



476 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



the office, and be a scandal to many."* It does not 
matter whether Ambrose or Hilary wrote this pas- 
sage. It was written at a time when the modern 
High-churchman and the modern Romanist were 
unknown. It agrees with the preceding testimony, 
and is utterly destructive to the doctrine of an 
uninterrupted episcopal succession from the apos- 
tles. 

"Bishops are superior in ordination only, and in 
this respect alone seem to excel presbyters," f writes 
Chrysostom. This was the case in the time of Chrys- 
ostom, for he does not undertake to say when or how 
ordination became a peculiar function of the bishop. 
Augustine, however, ascribes it purely to the custom 
of the Church. "As it respects names of honor," he 
says, "which the custom of the Church has caused to 
be observed, the episcopate is greater than the pres- 
byterate." $ "Every bishop is a presbyter, but not 
every presbyter a bishop," says Ambrose; "for he is 
bishop who is chief among presbyters. Therefore, 
Timothy was ordained a presbyter, but because there 
was no other above him he was a bishop." § Here is 
no mention of Timothy's ordination as a bishop. 
Presbyters assisted, even if Paul ordained him; and 
if the powers are episcopal, and the presbyters have 
not episcopal powers, on what ground could presby- 
ters assist in the ordination of a bishop? 

That many of the Roman bishops had no ordination 
to the papal office is evident to any one familiar with 
their history. Eusebius mentions a case which has 

* Comment, in Eph., iv. 11, 12. fChrysost. in 1 Tim. iff., 
Horn. x. J Augustine: Ep. ad Hieron., Ep. 82. § Comment, in 1 
Tim. iii. 8. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 477 



happened many times since. Fabianus was pointed 
out by the descent of a dove upon his head while the 
electors were in their assembly, whereupon the people 
placed him at once upon the episcopal throne.* There 
have been many such miracles and many such conse- 
crations, for let it be remembered that it is Peter's 
chair, and not the laying of canonical hands on the 
men who occupy it, that constitutes apostolical succes- 
sion in the Roman Church. 

Mr. Keble, one of the leaders in the Tractarian or 
Puseyite movement in the Church of England, says 
that Bishops Jewel, Whitgift, Cooper, and others of 
the Reformation, never ventured to urge the exclusive 
claims of episcopacy, " or to connect episcopal succes- 
sion with the validity of the holy sacraments." This 
is true; and they did not do so because they had no 
faith in the divine right of episcopacy. They could 
not, indeed, occupy any other ground. To admit that 
the Roman Catholic bishops were such by divine right 
was to give up the cause in advance. No reformation 
could have been possible under the High-church ban- 
ner, and the triumph of High-church principles would 
bring England and America precisely to the point 
from which the Reformation of the sixteenth century 
started. 

One of the favorite methods of High-churchmen is 
to quote a long list of writers as favoring their views, 
while they must know that the quotations they make 
have been garbled from the writings of those authors, 
and, as they stand in advocacy of an exclusive episco- 
pal succession, they gravely misrepresent the writers 
quoted. Many names in their so-called "Catena" are 
* Eusebius : Eccl, Hist, b. vi., c, 29. 



478 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



grossly misreported in this way. Bishop Burnet de- 
clares that the Church of England, notwithstanding the 
lack of episcopacy in the European Churches, did for 
many years recognize the Protestant Churches of the 
Continent as true Churches of Christ.* Bishop Jewel, 
whose "Apology for the Church of England " is one 
of the religious classics, declares that if not one of 
the bishops of the Roraish Church had joined the re- 
form movement, still it would have been a true Church 
of Christ without a bishop.f 

"The judicious Hooker" is often quoted in favor of 
apostolical succession as held by prelatists; but Hook- 
er declares that there may be "just and sufficient rea- 
son to allow ordination made without a bishop." X He 
exhorts the bishops to "bear in mind that it is rather 
the force of custom whereby the Church, having so 
long found it good to continue under the regiment of 
her virtuous bishops, doth still uphold, maintain, and 
honor them in that respect, than that any such true 
and heavenly law can be showed by the evidence 
whereof it may of a truth appear that the Lord him- 
self hath appointed presbyters forever to be under 
the regiment of bi shops. . . . . Their authority is a 
sword which the Church hath power to take from 
them." § 

When James I. had collected his Scotch candidates 
for the episcopacy in 1609, the question arose, Should 
these men, being presbyters of a presbyterian Church, 
be first ordained presbyters, or shall we take their 
presbyter's orders as valid? Bancroft, one of the 

* Burnet on the XXXIX. Articles, Art, XXIII. f Defense of 
Apology, part 2, c. 5. % Hooker's Ecc. Polity, viii. 14. \ Ibid., vi 
8; i. 14; iii. 10. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 479 



most prejudiced bigots of his time, as Archbishop .of 
Canterbury, answered against reorclination, saying 
"that thereof there was no necessity, seeing where 
bishops could not be had, the ordination by the pres- 
byters must be esteemed lawful, otherwise that it 
might be doubted if there were any vocation in most 
of the reformed Churches."* 

Archdeacon Mason, author of the famous "Yin- 
dicise," in an appendix to that work, "expressly de- 
fends the validity of the ordinations of the ministers 
of the reformed Churches beyond the seas." " Where- 
fore, seeing a presbyter is equal to a bishop in the 
power of order, he hath equally intrinsical power to 
give orders." "Whereby he means," says Mr. Goode, 
"that a presbyter, having received the full sacerdotal 
character, is intrinsically capable of passing that char- 
acter to others when an office or jurisdiction is given 
him by the Church in which such power may regular- 
ly and canonically be exercised." f 

This is precisely the case of John Wesley and 
Thomas Coke. High-churchmen tell us that a man 
cannot give what he does not possess. Mr. Wesley 
possessed the right to administer the sacraments, and 
he gave these rights to Thomas Yasey and Richard 
Whatcoat. There is no violation of the law of prel- 
acy in that case. Mr. Wesley could not give the right 
to ordain ministers in the American Methodist Church, 
but he could designate a fit person to do this work; 
and when the Church elected him, Thomas Coke be- 
came a Methodist bishop. The Church constituted 
the office, and Mr. Wesley consecrated Dr. Coke as a 
proper person to fill it. If the Christmas Con- 
* Eule of Faith and Practice, ii., p. 9G. f Ibid., p. 97. 



480 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



ference had refused to accept the service of Dr. 
Coke, his episcopal character would have perished 
ab ovo. 

But the Romanists of the sixteenth and seventeenth 
centuries occupied the ground now taken by the High- 
churchmen, substituting the Eoman chair for a per- 
sonal episcopal succession. The same arguments used 
by J ewel, Whitgift, Mason, Fulke, Field, Davenant, 
and Usher, are pertinent to the cause of an enlight- 
ened Christianity in our own times. Mason says that 
"the Churches in Germany need not seek to foreign 
bishops, because they have superintendents or bishops 
among themselves; and as for other places which em- 
brace the discipline of Geneva, they also have bishops 
in effect." He enters iuto a long argument to show 
that the "angel" or "star" was the president of each 
presbytery, and therefore, having the power of ordi- 
nation, was in all essential features a scriptural 
bishop.* 

Archbishop Usher, one of the most learned prelates 
in Great Britain or Ireland, toward the close of his 
life affirms that it had ever been his opinion that "bish- 
op and presbyter differed in grade only, not in order," 
and although the custom of episcopal ordination pre- 
vailed, the ordination of presbyters was valid.f To 
the same effect is the testimony of Bishop Bedell, an 
illustrious leader of the Protestant Church in Ireland, 
who in a license to a minister styles himself " syn- 
presbytero," his co-presbyter and brother in Christ. X 
In like manner we have the words of Bishop Daven- 
ant and Dean Field. Dean Sherlock declares that 



* Rale of Faith and Practice, ii., p. 99. | Ibid., p. 101. % Life of 
Bishop Bedell, p. 256. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 481 



" a Church may be a truly Catholic Church, and such 
as we may and ought to communicate with, without 
bishops." "The Church of England does not deny 
but that in case of necessity the ordination of presby- 
ters may be valid."* Dr. Claget, in the examination 
of Bellarmine's seventh "note of the Church," de- 
clares that essential unity of faith is alone required 
to determine the question of Church unity. " The 
Church of England does not unchurch those parts of 
Christendom that hold the unity of the faith," what- 
ever may be the particular form of their Church gov- 
ernment. "From hence, also, the folly of that con- 
ceit may be easily discovered that in this divided state 
of Christendom there must be one Church which is 
the only Church of Christ exclusively to all the rest 
that are not in communion with her, which is as 
much as to say that because there is not that unity 
amongst Christians which there ought to be, there- 
fore there shall be none at all; and because they 
are not united in one communion, therefore they 
are not united in one Lord, one faith, one bap- 
tism." f 

These are witnesses from the Church of England 
and her sister Church of Ireland. They are the true 
representatives of English opinion, which even Arch- 
bishop Laud, High-churchman that he was, could not 
refute; for he says, in answer to Fisher: "For succes- 
sion in the general I say this: it is a great happiness 
where it may be had visible and continued, and a great 
conquest over the mutability of this present world; 
but I do not find any one of the ancient fathers that 
makes local, personal, visible, and continued succes- 

*Kule of Faith and Practice, ii., p. 108. f Ibid., p. 109. 
31 



482 



The Higli-churcliman Disarmed: 



sioii a necessary sign or mark of the true Church in 
any one place." * 

a If tllis be so, the High-churchmen of this age have pos- 
itively no support or countenance from English Church 
history for their extreme and extravagant doctrines. 
They are the schismatics who break the continuity of 
Christian fellowship and communion by proclaiming, 
"The temple of the Lord are we, and heathens all be- 
side." But let them beware how they attempt to 
make the Episcopal Church of this country, or the 
Church of England, responsible for the uncharitable 
opinions which can be supported only by repudiating 
the Protestant Eeformation and an approach to Rome 
in doctrine and in practice. 

The true doctrine of the Church of England is 
stated by Mr. Goode to be, first, that the power of or- 
dination and general superintendence of the Church 
was by the apostles committed to the presidents of 
churches, and therefore they are the proper and regu- 
lar authorities for the exercise of that power under 
ordinary circumstances. Second, it follows, there- 
fore, that episcopal ordination is the only regular 
mode of admission to the episcopal office.f This is 
no more, no less, than any Methodist Episcopalian in 
the United States would declare to be the doctrine of 
his Church. An ordination in the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church performed by presbyters only would be 
illegal, and therefore irregular. Nevertheless, in the 
event of the death of all the bishops of the Church, 
authorized presbyters could ordain to the episcopacy 
any properly elected and qualified presbyter. AYe 
acknowledge, at the same time, the ministerial orders 



- Kule of Faith and Practice, ii., p. 121. f Ibid., p. 72. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 483 



of every Christian Church that uses any form of or- 
dination, no matter what it may be. We do this, be- 
cause we acknowledge the sovereign authority of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, as the only Head of the Church; 
and, in those particulars relating to the mero form of 
government in the Church, it has pleased him to give 
no specific law in the Scriptures. The spirit of the 
Bible, of the Church, and of the age defends this po- 
sition against all the assaults of mediaeval intolerance 
and superstition. 



The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts 

Its Origin in 1701— Objects— Missionaries Engaged in Making 

Proselytes — Testimony of Bishop Watson — American Whig 

Bishop Porteus Charges the Society with Refusing to Preach the 
Gospel to the Slaves Owned by It — Dr. Coke Supplied the Socie- 
ty's Slaves with Missionaries — Abundant Means to Make Prose- 
lytes, None for the Support of Missions to the Heathen — Intoler- 
ance in South Carolina — Society's Missionaries and Their Work 
— Legislature Captured— Episcopal Church Established by Act of 
the Government — The Society Improves the Opportunity — Re- 
sults — Sowing the Seed — Defense— Preference for Fields Already 
Supplied with Laborers— Hardships of Presbyterians — A " Hunt- 
ed Thing " in New England— Some Valuable Service — Statistics 
of Progress in Virginia— Self-denial the Source of Power and the 
Means of Success. 

n^HE "Society for the Propagation of the Gospel 
L in Foreign Parts" was organized in 1701, in the 
last year of the reign of William III. The avowed 
purposes of the Society were: "To secure a mainte- 
nance for an orthodox clergy, and making other pro- 
visions for the propagation of the gospel in the plan- 
tations, colonies, factories, etc. To this end the King- 
incorporated the archbishops, several bishops, and 
others of the nobility, gentry, and clergy, to the num- 
ber of ninety, into a body, with the privilege to purchase 
two thousand pounds a year inheritance, and estate 
for liyes or years, with other goods to any value." * 

* London Encyclopedia, Art. "Society." 

(434) 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 



485 



By the phrase "orthodox clergy," the clergy of the 
Church of England are meant, of course. It does 
not seem, therefore, that the Society was departing 
very widely from its original design when we find its 
policy devoted to the conversion of dissenters to epis- 
copacy. Nevertheless, it was charged, as far back as 
1768, that the missionaries employed by the Society 
were indifferent to the welfare of the heathen Indians, 
and gave their time and attention wholly to prosely- 
tism in the colonies. Two or three men were sent to 
the Indians, says a writer in the American Whig* only 
to keep up an appearance and to hoodwink the sub- 
scribers in England. Nearly eighty missionaries of 
the Society were employed in New England and the 
central colonies, "and settled in the cities and larger 
towns and villages, in which the regular worship of 
God had been long before duly kept up and a minis- 
try maintained. These missionaries, to magnify their 
office and show the success of their mission, transmit 
regularly to the Society journals of their proceedings 
stuffed with accounts of the conversion of Quakers, 
Baptists, Presbyterians, etc. — not to Christianity, but 
to episcopacy." f 

The charge made by this writer is indorsed by Bish- 
op Watson. The ' Anecdotes of the Life of Richard 
"Watson, Bishop of Landaff," contains a letter written 
by the Bishop in 1777, in which he says: "By virtue 
of my office in the university I am a minister of the 
' Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in For- 
eign Parts,' but ever since my appointment to the 
professorship of divinity I have absolutely refused 
contributing any thing toward the support of the So- 
*Am&'ican Whig, p. £5. f Ibid., p. 2Jq. 



486 The High-churchman Disarmed: 



ciety, because I always believed that its missionaries 
were more zealous in proselyting dissenters to episco- 
pacy than in converting heathens to Christianity."* 

But a more serious charge was brought against this 
Society by Dr. Porteus, Bishop of London. The So- 
ciety owned an estate in the island of Barbadoes, a 
part of the property consisting in nearly three hun- 
dred slaves. From the labor of these slaves was de- 
rived a large part of the funds that supported their 
missionaries in America, In 1783 Dr. Porteus, who 
was then Bishop of Chester, preached a sermon be- 
fore the Society " He chose as his subject the civ- 
ilization and conversion of the negroes in the Brit- 
ish West India Islands. It appears that for some 
time before this he had turned his mind very much 
to the condition of that oppressed and suffering peo- 
ple, and had corresponded and conversed on the sub- 
ject with several persons possessing property in the 
islands and others in this country. The result of his 
inquiry was that the state of the negroes was a most 
deplorable one, as well in a temporal as a spiritual 
point of view; and he therefore thought himself called 
upon by every principle of justice and of policy to 
excite, if possible, the attention of the public to this 
great question. This he did in the first instance, by 
recommending it strongly to the Society, in the dis- 
course which he addressed to them, to begin on their 
own trust estate in Barbadoes a regular system of re- 
ligious instruction as an example to the planters, and 
to appropriate a portion of their funds to so desirable 
a purpose." f 

^Anecdotes of the Life of K. Watson, Bishop of Landaff, p. 56. 
t Life of Bishop Porteus, p. 85. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 487 



Never was a more equitable or more meritorious 
proposition made to a benevolent society. Out of the 
labor of the poor neglected slaves a large part of the 
Society's income came, and surely those who professed 
to be engaged in propagating the gospel among infi- 
dels and heathens would hasten to repair the error, 
not to say the crime, of indifference and neglect to- 
ward their own property. But the result was by no 
means such as either the Bishop or the public had a 
right to expect. After much debate and a great deal 
of opposition, a committee was appointed to consider 
a plan of missionary labor drawn up by the Bishop of 
Chester. The committee held a session of four hours, 
and made their report to the effect that " his lordship 
merited the thanks of the Society for the great pains 
and trouble he had taken, but that the circumstances 
of the Society rendered it at that time unadvisable to 
adopt the plan." "Thus," says the Bishop, "was a 
final period put at once to a most interesting and im- 
portant subject, and the spiritual condition of near 
half a million of negro slaves decided in four hours! 
... If this example be not set, if this attempt be 
not made by a society whose professed purpose is to 
propagate the gospel in foreign parts ' among infidels 
'and heathens, by whom is there the least probability 
that it can or will be undertaken? M * 

If the biographer of Dr. Porteus had replied to the 
question propounded by the Bishop in the last sen- 
tence of the foregoing extract, he would have com- 
plied with the dictates of honesty and candor. The 
"Venerable Society" refused to send the gospel to the 
negroes of the West Indies, but Dr. Thomas Coke, a 
-Life of Bishop Porteus, pp. 88, 89. 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



Methodist bishop, three years after that refusal, was 
carried by the hand of Providence into this field pre- 
pared for the harvest. In 1790 he carried out a re- 
enforcement of missionaries, and the negroes belong- 
ing to the "Venerable Society" had an opportunity of 
hearing the gospel preached in Barbadoes by Meth- 
odist ministers. 

The Society had been relieved of the burden of sup- 
porting nearly eighty missionaries in the United States, 
and yet they complain of the "circumstances" that 
prevented their giving the word of life to their heathen 
laborers. From whence came the money that sus- 
tained the Wesleyan preachers in the West Indies? 
In the first place, out of the pocket of Dr. Coke, who 
gave time, talent, and money to the cause. In the 
second place, it came from the purses of the people 
of England whose hearts had been stirred by the 
thrilling eloquence of Dr. Coke. 

But this Society for the propagation of the gospel 
had abundant means to be employed in the establish- 
ment of denominational interests in the American col- 
onies. One of the earliest enterprises which they 
undertook was the establishment of " the Church " in 
South Carolina. In 1670 Charles II. granted the ter- 
ritory of the two Carolinas to Lords Berkeley, Clar- 
endon, Craven, and Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir 
William Berkeley, and Sir John Colleton. John Locke, 
the philosopher, wrote the Constitution of South Car- 
olina, and incorporated into it his well-known princi- 
ples of religious toleration. But the plan of govern- 
ment vested monarchical powers in the proprietors 
and their heirs. In 1705 Carteret— afterward Lord 
Granville— being the oldest proprietor, became Gov- 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 489 



ernor, and he determined to compel a]l persons to 
conform to the worship of the Church of England. 
There were many English dissenters in the colony, 
and one of these, acting as Governor, had obtained 
from the Legislature a salary and settlement upon the 
Episcopal minister of Charleston. This generosity 
of Gov. Blake, a nephew of the admiral who was in- 
strumental in giving the dominion of the seas to En- 
gland, did not satisfy the English proprietor. For 
did it satisfy the "Venerable Society." Only one of 
its " missionaries " was at this time in the colony, but 
the managers in London waited patiently for the 
"conversion" of the Carolinians. This was effected 
in the style of the " ward politicians " of more recent 
periods. 

It was necessary to get possession of the Legisla- 
ture. A fair election was sure to result in a majority 
opposed to a "Church establishment." The Rev. Mr. 
Marston, the "orthodox "minister of Charleston, stated 
that " the dissenters were the soberest, most numerous, 
and richest people of this province." * Nevertheless, 
by the agency of one James Moor, a man of doubtful 
character among his neighbors, Lord Granville ma- 
nipulated the Legislature until he secured obedient 
and willing tools. Moor succeeded in forcing himself 
into the Governor's chair; and when the members of 
the Assembly did not vote to please him, he dissolved 
it, and called for a new election. The body consisted 
of thirty members, and by fraud, intimidation, and 
bribery a truculent majority was returned. "Jews, 
strangers, sailors, servants, negroes, and almost every 
Frenchman in Craven and Berkeley counties, came 

* Oldmixon's Carolina, in Carroll's Collections, vol. ii., p. 429. 



490 



The High-churchman Disarmed: 



down to elect, and their votes were taken, and the per- 
sons by them voted for were returned by the sheriffs." '* 
"And this was that Parliament," says Oldmixon, the 
indignant historian of those times, "who, to oppress 
the Protestant dissenters, brought in a bill contrary 
to the first and last fundamental constitution, to the 
interest of the colony, and the right of every free- 
holder there. It was entitled 'An act for the more 
effectual preservation of the Government, by requir- 
ing all persons that shall hereafter be chosen mem- 
bers of the Commons House of Assembly, and sit in 
the same, to conform to the religious worship in this 
province according to the Church of England, and to 
receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper according 
to the rights and usage of the said Church.' Every 
dissenter that was turned out of the House by virtue 
of this act made room for the most bigoted of the 
faction to get in; for it provided that the person who 
had the most votes next to such dissenter should be 
admitted in his place; and those that opposed the 
dissenters being generally, according to the before- 
mentioned author, men of violent and persecuting 
principles, the faction secured the power in their own 
hands." f 

This bill was passed in 1704, at which time the So- 
ciety had only one missionary in the colony, who found 
five communicants in his parish; and at the end of 
three years he had increased them to thirty-two. Dy- 
ing in 1706, his successor complained very loudly that 
a great multitude of teachers and expounders of all 
sorts and persuasions had spread a great variety of 
opinions, and that very few persons understood Chris- 
* Oldraixon's Carolina, in Carroll's Collections, vol. ii., p. 429, | Ibid-. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 491 



tianity.* In Charleston, at Easter, he found twenty- 
four communicants. In 1707 there were five mission- 
aries in the colony, and during the twenty-six years 
covered by this report, there were eighteen employed, 
but at no time were there more than twelve agents of 
the Society at work in the colony, and the reports 
show only about three hundred communicants. This 
did not indicate a high state of prosperity for the 
"Establishment." With every civil and political dis- 
ability laid upon them, the "dissenters" preserved 
their self-respect and adhered to their religious opin- 
ions. The missionaries circulated prayer-books among 
the children of the Non-conformists, and now and 
then captured a few of them; but the growth of "the 
Church" was very slow. "Upon his preaching at his 
first coming," says one of the reports of the Society, 
"to a good number of Churchmen, he had several In- 
dependents and Anabaptists who came to hear him, 
and behaved themselves very devoutly and attentively 
during the whole time of divine service." J r Another 
report says: "A great many young persons, descend- 
ants of dissenters of various tenets, conformed to the 
Church of England, and several young men of French 
parentage in Orange Quarter, who understood En- 
glish, constantly attended his church. The books 
the Society sent to be distributed by him were of 
great use, especially the Common Prayer-books, given 
to the younger people of the French and to dissent- 
ers' children." % 

This was sowing seed to some purpose. Carteret, 
with the civil sword, and the Society, with its mission- 

*Account of Missionaries Sent to South Carolina, in Carrol], vol. 
% p. 540. f Ibid., p. 543. i Ibid., p. 553. 



492 The High-churchman Disarmed: 

aries armed with prayer-books, ought to have captured 
all the Huguenots and Independents in the province. 
But human nature is very stubborn, and men will 
reason, societies and noblemen to the contrary not- 
withstanding. When they saw men like Governor 
Moor engaged in capturing helpless Indians and sell- 
ing them into slavery, and listened ever so devoutly 
and patiently to the reading of a liturgy or the recita- 
tion of a moral essay in lieu of a sermon, they felt 
that there was something still wanting to convince 
them that the Church of England was the only nurs- 
ing mother that could prepare the sinful soul for a 
home in paradise. 

While the Carolinas were in the hands of a sover- 
eign proprietary who held them under bonds in order 
that the "Venerable Society" might teach them how 
to be good Churchmen, t the northern colonies were 
prepared to resist all measures that threatened their 
religious freedom. " Our forefathers, harassed by spir- 
itual courts and the power of lordly prelates," says 
a writer in the controversy of 1768, "being likewise 
denied the privilege of peaceably worshiping God in 
a way most agreeable to their consciences, at last 
wearied out with persecution, resolved to leave their 
native country, and seek shelter in the wilds of Amer- 
ica. The power of the Church of England by law 
established they imagined was confined to England. 
. . . No sooner was the country settled, towns built, 
and prospects of peace and plenty opening to their 
view, than those prelates from whose power and per- 
secution they had fled began to envy them their lib- 
erty, and to lay plans and concert measures to bring 
them again under the yoke of bondage. To prepare 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 493 

the way, a Society is formed under the specious pre- 
tense of propagating Christianity in foreign parts, a 
fund is established for defraying the expenses, and 
pious, well-disposed persons are desired to contribute 
to this fund." * 

In defense of the Society it was alleged that there 
was no disposition to domineer over the No n- conform- 
ists in New England, but only to provide t; church serv- 
ices " for those who were, both by birth and by choice, 
members of the Church of England. But there were 
ready answers to these professions of fair dealing. 
Did not the proprietors of the Carolina colonies en- 
act the most stringent laws against dissenters, dis- 
qualifying them from holding any civil office? Were 
not Puritans banished from Virginia, and peaceable 
Presbyterians and Baptists imprisoned and fined lor 
no offense but that of preaching the gospel? Did 
not the laws of Maryland require of every man to 
contribute to the maintenance of the Episcopal clergy? 
Moreover, it was susceptible of proof that a majority 
of the citizens in these colonies had never selected 
the clergymen of the Church of England for their 
pastors, but in every instance the colonial establish- 
ments had been forced upon the people by the tools 
of the proprietaries or the agents of the royal Gov- 
ernment. 

Assertions like these — supported by the proofs, 
which were abundant — could not be answered by the 
friends of the Society. But there were other charges 
of a grave nature, the proof of which lay nearer home. 
"The Legislature of Massachusetts Bay," says an- 
other writer of 1768, "moved with pity and compas- 

* American Whig, p. 25. 



The High-churcfanan Disarmed: 



sion for the poor savages in America, who continue 
in deplorable ignorance of the way of salvation through 
a Bedeemer, lately by Act of Assembly erected a so- 
ciety in Boston to spread the gospel through these 
benighted tribes. When this law went home for the 
royal approbation, the pious Archbishop of Canter- 
bury appeared in person, and made use of his exten- 
sive influence to have it repealed. Why should the 
highest dignitary in the Church of England oppose 
so well-meant a design for the conversion of the 
heathen? Was he afraid that the known zeal of the 
clergy and society of Boston would engage with vigor 
in carrying so good a work into execution, and there- 
by bring a reproach upon a society in England erect- 
ed for the same purpose, who, more than half a cent- 
ury past, have been squandering away large sums of 
money collected for the relief of those savages in the 
support of a body of missionaries, whose usual feats 
are some few conversions from other denominations 
of Christians to their communion? ".* 

The preference of the Society was evidently for 
those colonies which were well supplied with minis- 
ters of the Non-conformists, to the neglect of many 
communities that greatly needed the attention of the 
missionaries. But ministers of the Church of En- 
gland refused to place themselves in the hands of the 
Society to be sent to the remote places on the borders 
of civilization. In 1769 the Moravians— or United 
Brethren, as they then called themselves— appeared 
before Lord Hillsborough, Secretary of State for 
the American J)epartment. They desired protection 
aga inst the d epredations of certain evil-minded per- 

* American Whig, p. 84. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 495 



sons in Labrador who had interfered with their mis- 
sionary labors. During the interview between the 
deputation and the Secretary, "his lordship inquir- 
ing more definitely how much, in a round sum, a min- 
ister receives, it was stated that in London it amount- 
ed to between fifty and sixty pounds per annum; and 
in the country, where living is not so expensive, some- 
thing less. He expressed his astonishment at the pos- 
sibility of any minister being able to subsist in Lon- 
don on so small an income, and added that when he 
wanted two missionaries for East Florida, to each of 
whom the Government engaged to provide a salary of 
one hundred pounds per annum; the Bishop of Lon- 
don did his very best, but was unable to find the men. 
His lordship regretted the extreme difficulty that ex- 
isted in procuring missionaries in the Established 
Church."* 

The clergy had no fondness for "border work." It 
had been well if, refusing to go themselves, they had 
not placed obstacles in the way to prevent others from 
doing that work. But growing cities, large communi- 
ties, the ease, comfort, and society of the more popu- 
lous and wealthy colonies, had attractions which these 
so-called "missionaries" could not resist. And they 
have left, in this line, not a few " successors." 

The Episcopal Church in New York City was incor- 
porated by law. When the Presbyterians applied for 
a similar charter the Bishop of London appeared 
against them, and used his utmost endeavors to ren- 
der the application fruitless.! If there was any sin- 
cerity in the profession of respect for religious lib- 
erty, why was the protection of the law guaranteed to 
* Life of James Hutton, p. 464. '\ American Whig, p. 84 



496 The High-ehurcJimcm Disarmed: 



one Church and refused to the other? No amount of 
argument could alter these facts or make them con- 
sistent with any other design than that of securing, 
by all possible agencies, the conquest of the country 
by the Episcopalians. The denial of the right to hold 
property subjected the Presbyterians of New York to 
serious inconvenience, for they were compelled to se- 
cure themselves in possession by making the moder- 
ator of the synod in Scotland their trustee. This was 
a hardship from which the dissenters in England were 
exempt. Is it strange that this narrow-minded and 
bigoted policy produced uncompromising enemies to 
the English hierarchy? 

Thus, by oppressive legal enactments in some of the 
southern colonies, and the manifestation of an intol- 
erant spirit in others, the advocates of episcopacy were 
fanning the flame that ultimately burned to the de- 
struction of all British interests in the thirteen prov- 
inces. This state of things preceded and followed the 
Bevolutionary War. The people identified the friends 
of the Episcopal Church with the advocates of mon- 
archy and religious bondage. 

"In the Eastern States," says Dr. Stone, the biog- 
rapher of Bishop Griswold, "there was a peculiar 
weakness in our Church, rendering it extremely diffi- 
cult either to procure or maintain bishops in the dio- 
ceses severally. This weakness arose from the fact 
that the genius of New England people and of New 
England institutions was of all others most inim- 
ical to the introduction and growth of episcopacy. 
When Patrick Henry hurled the hot thunderbolts of 
his eloquence against the tithe-gathering clergy of the 
British province of Virginia till they instinctively rose 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 497 



and fled in terror from his presence, we may easily 
conceive that the auguries of popularity to our Church 
in that quarter were bodingly dark. But darker yet 
were they on the shores of New England, where the 
whole spirit of the people was a more constant as well 
as a more terrific orator against our Church than even 
the Virginia Demosthenes, and where for long years 
every step which she took left the track of a hunted 
thing. After the war of the ^Revolution, indeed — which 
resulted in the establishment of free institutions, in- 
cluding the toleration of all forms of religious wor- 
ship — nothing could be done openly against our Church 
in the Eastern States. It continued to live, therefore, 
without molestation. Still the breath of popular sen- 
timent set so strongly against it that its continuance 
was almost as precarious as that of a newly trans- 
planted tree amidst the sweepings of a whirlwind."* 

It was due to the Society for Propagating the Gos- 
pel that there was any thing resembling form or sym- 
metry in the Episcopal interest in the Northern and 
Eastern States. "The Episcopal Church in the non- 
episcopal colonies never was in such outwardly flour- 
ishing circumstances," says the American Whig of 1768. 
"And no wonder; the Society's expensive interposition 
could not but have some considerable effects. It has 
brought it from nothing to something; it has kept the 
r professors of the Church of England together; and as 
many like cheapness, even in the way to heaven, some 
have joined them from other Churches, who were well 
enough pleased to have ministers maintained for 
them by good-natured people in England and else- 
where." f 

* Life of Bishop Griswold, pp. 135, 136. f American Wing, p. 254. 
32 



498 The High-ehurcliman Disarmed: 



It must be of this economical class tliat the Con- 
necticut Episcopalians consisted for the most part* 
for Dr. Stone informs us that a Congregational min- 
ister, whose name was Goodrich, had taken special 
pains to make a census of the Episcopalians in 1774. 
He found one thousand and eighty-four in Newtown, 
nine hundred and forty-two in New Haven, nine hun- 
dred and fourteen in Simsbury, and froin six hundred 
and twenty-six to seven hundred and ninety-two in 
other places.* In seven towns nearly six thousand 
persons are reported as Episcopalians, and yet not 
one of these places could support a pastor. f The dil- 
igent collector of figures, Mr. Goodrich, looked upon 
the increase of the Episcopalians as a direful evil, 
saying that he regarded "the growth of the prelacy 
as hostile to the spirit of our American liberties, both 
in Church and State, and favorable to the ultimate 
establishment here of a monarchical government with 
a legally associated hierarchy." Dr. Stone, to whom 
we are indebted for this quotation from the patriotic 
Congregationalist, has a singular remark in this con- 
nection. "This effort at numbering," he says, "was 
systematically and extensively made, and seems to 
have had some influence, if not in expediting, at least 
in aggravating the war of the Revolution." % It is 
difficult to see the relation of an Episcopal census in 
Connecticut to the war of the Revolution. It is not 
so difficult to determine the justice of the opinion 
which classed High-churchmen with the friends of 
intolerance and absolute monarchy. The " Venerable 
Society" sent High-churchmen to represent them, and 

* Life of Griswold, p. 24, note. | White's Memoirs of the Church, 
p. 13. J Life of Griswold, p. 24, note. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 499 



if the people judged the opinions of the master by 
those of the servants, they were to be blamed who 
suffered themselves to be misrepresented. 

Dr. Chandler, one of the agents of this Society, as- 
serted that the Episcopalians amounted to nearly, if 
not quite, one million of persons in the colonies.* 
Dr. Stiles of Rhode Island, estimated the Episcopa- 
lians in New England at twelve thousand six hundred, 
while the other denominations amounted to four hun- 
dred and eighty-seven thousand-! Rev. Mr. Craig, 
one of the missionaries, stated that only one-fiftieth 
part of the people of Pennsylvania professed to be- 
long to the Church of England. In three congrega- 
tions he had only fifteen communicants. In the coun- 
ties of York and Cumberland, Pennsylvania, two hun- 
dred and two persons are reported, and twenty-nine 
families in another place. If only one Pennsylvanian 
in fifty preferred the Episcopal Church, the whole 
number would be about six thousand. If we estimate 
a similar number in New York and New Jersey, we 
have thirty-seven thousand as the total population fa- 
vorable to Episcopacy in the colonies north of Mary- 
land. This exceeds the estimate of the Philadelphia 
Centinel, which places the figures at twenty-five thou- 
sand.J 

Thomas Jefferson tells us that the Episcopal popu- 
lation in Virginia was only one-third of the colony. § 
Mr. Jefferson wrote in 1781, before any test of* a pop- 
ular character had been made. The attempt to reor- 
ganize and rehabilitate the Church in the decade in- 
cluded in the years 1786-1796 proves beyond question 

* American Whig, p. 250. f Ibid., p. 253. i lb., p. 134. g Jeffer- 
son's Kotes on Virginia, p. 308. 



5 QP ^ High-churchman Disarmed: 

that the Episcopalians in Virginia had not only fallen 
into an insignificant minority, but that they were by 
far the smallest denomination of evangelical Chris- 
tians in the State. The same may be said of Ma- 
ryland. The pitiful plea that the Church property 
was taken from the Episcopalians, and thereby their 
Church was paralyzed and well-nigh destroyed, is not 
worthy of free American citizens and believers in the 
providence of God. Where was the Church property 
of the Methodists? How many acres of land and 
comfortable homes provided by the State had Asbury 
and his itinerant preachers? Where were the funds 
to pay the men who breasted the rivers, penetrated 
the forests, braved the perils of wild beasts in the 
wilderness, and still more formidable foes, the savage 
Indians? Did Asbury sit down and weep, or leave his 
work to find a warm fireside in a college-hall, when he 
failed to receive five hundred dollars for episcopal 
service in Virginia? Shame upon Bishop Madison, 
claiming to be sent of God as an overseer of the flock, 
but abandoning the struggle with adversity and tak- 
ing refuge in a school-room! A college, too, wherein 
not more than twenty pupils had been under tuition at 
one time for more than seventy-five years of its exist- 
ence.* Do Episcopalians wonder at the paucity of 
their numbers in those early days? Do they stand 
amazed at the fact that, within ten years of its plant- 
ing in Virginia, Methodism had a larger number of 
communicants than the Protestant Episcopal Church 
could claim fifty years after its organization? The 
solution is found in part, in the fact that the Method- 
ist Bishop Asbury lived upon a salary of sixty-four 
* Protestant Episcopal Church in Virginia, p. 82. 



A Defense of Our Methodist Fathers. 501 



dollars per annum, and the Episcopal Bishop Madi- 
son found five hundred dollars too little to supply him 
with the necessities of life. 

The Holy Scriptures pronounce the sin of covetous- 
ness to be a species of idolatry, and no defense can 
be made or ought to be made in the case of those who 
are able to pay for the gospel and will not Nor are 
those people acting wisely or in their own interest who 
stint their pastors, and compel them to submit to hu- 
miliation and discomfort under the plea of protecting 
their ministers from pride and luxury. All this is a 
delusion of Satan, and the righteous Lord will require 
a settlement in his own way and at his own time. 
But the man who professes to be called of God to 
preach the gospel and forsakes his mission, because he 
is required to give up some of the comforts of life, is 
not in the apostolical succession, although half the 
episcopal hands in Christendom may have been laid 
upon his head. 



pppcndix. 



LETTER OF BISHOP ASBURY. 



The author of this volume is indebted to the kindness of the 
Kev. Collins Denny, of the Baltimore Conference, for the use of the 
following letter, written by Bishop Asbury. I believe that it now 
appears in print for the first time. It is addressed to 
" Eev. Christopher Frye, Harrisburgh, Kockingham County, West 

Virginia. "Pittsburgh, Sept. 2, 1811. 

"My Dear Son : O the grace we need ! and what a fullness ! I— we want 
meekness more than Moses— courage like Joshua— faith like Abraham 
—a spirit of prayer like Jacob— zeal like Paul! O grace! O grace! 
The superintendency have unshaken confidence in you. Yet as we 
cannot see thy District, they wish to hear from you. Our general 
prospects are good in the States, Territories, and provinces, for 3,000 
miles north and south, 1,000 east and west ! G ruber and Quinn before 
the wind for camp-meetings ! 10,000 increase this year ; 669 effective 
and defective men on our minutes. I think we congregate in Amer- 
ica 3 millions— our camp and conference meetings from 3 to 5, 
to 10,000 in the course of 6 days. Will you write us to Camden, 
South Carolina, Dec. 10 or 11? Perhaps there may be a struggle in 
our next General Conference; either the government shall be Pres- 
byterian and lame, or Episcopal in its small remains. If the poison 
of electioneering obtains, woe to Presiding Elders!— they are the Bish- 
ops' men, keep them back; but it will remain to know, what powers 
are saved? what the General Conference ceded to the Delegated 
Conference? and if in dismembering Episcopacy they will dissolve 
themselves and violate the Constitution? 

Bishop McKendree may say, "They have made me, let them un- 
make me." I cannot say so altogether. If I was made at all— by 
the hand of the Lord and good men— I was made before they were, 
before some froward children were born, or born again. I cannot 
cast them off! I cannot do without them, if they can do without 

(503) 



504: 



Appendix. 



me. I must continue in the ship, storm or calm— near the helm or 
before the mast! As long as I can, I will be with them. My 40 
years expires next month : I am enlisted for life. 

I never knew how to love the Canadians, till I visited them at the 
hazard of my life, and loss of the use of my limbs and health; and 
never knew how well I loved my children in the States till sepa- 
rated by the St. Lawrence and Lake Ontario. I cannot leave row ! 
This will be a glorious fall harvest of ingathering of souls in every 
State of the Union. I am thine, F. A y." 



CONSULTED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS VOLUME. 



For the convenience of those who may desire to verify the facts 
and statements of this volume, the author has furnished a list of his 
authorities. In the majority of cases, where the ipsissima verba of an 
author have been quoted, the reference will be found in the foot-note 
of the page. A number of volumes consulted have not been thus 
specified, because the authority quoted was deemed sufficient, and 
further reference would serve no important end. 
Pentateuch 



Abarbanel, Com. 
Hanover, 1710. 

Account of Denmark, 1688. 

Account of Missions, Carroll's His- 
torical Collections of S. Carolina. 

Ambrose, Works of. 

American Whig: New York, 1768. 

Ammianus Marcellimis, Roman His- 
tory of. 

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. 

Annual Minutes, M. E. Church. 

Annual Minutes, WesleyanMethodist. 

Annual Register: London, 1781. 

Arminian Magazine, 17S9. 

Arminius, James, Works of, 3 vols.: 
Bagnall, 1S53. 

Asbury, Bishop, Journals, 3 vols. 

Asser, Life of Alfred the Great : Bonn . 

Augustine, Aurelius, 18 vols. : Venice, 
1756. 

Bailey, Duties of the Ministry: Lon- 
don, 1840. 
Baird, Robert, Protestantism in Italy. 
Bangs, Dr. H., An Original Church 
" of Christ. 

Bangs, Dr. H., History of the M. E. 
Church, 4 vols. 

Barrow, Dr. Isaac, Works, 3 vols. 

Bathurst, Life of Bishop, 2 vols, : Lon- 
don. 



Baxter, Richard, Catholic Theology, 
1675. 

Bayle, Dictionaire Historique et Crit- 
ique, 4 vols. 

Beardsley, Dr. E. E., History of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in 
Connecticut, 2 vols. 

Beardsley, Dr. E. E., Life of Bishop 
Seabury. 

Becon, Thomas, Chaplain to Archb. 
Cranmer, Works, 2 vols. 

Bede, Venerable, Ecclesiastical His- 
tory of England: Bonn. 

Bedell, Life of Bishop. 

Benedict, History of the Baptists. 

Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testa- 
ment, 2 vols. 

Bengel, John Albert, Life and Writ- 
ings of. 

Bennett, Dr. W. W., Memorials of 

Methodism in Virginia. 
Benson, Joseph, Commentaries, 6 

vols. 

Benson, Joseph, Life of John Fletch- 
er. 

Bentley, Remarks on a Discourse of 

Free-thinking, 1733. 
Bibliotheca Sacra, 9 vols. 
Bingham, Antiquities of the Christian 

Church, 2 vols. 



506 



List of Authorities, 



Bird, The Anglican Church, 

Blaekburne, Archdeacon, The Con- 
fessional, 1756. 

Blackstone, Sir William, Commen- 
taries, 4 vols. 

Blunt, Annotated Book of Common 
Prayer. 

Book of Homilies, Church of En- 
gland. 

Bower, History of the Popes, 7 vols, 
Brandt, History of the Reformation 

in the Low Countries, 4 vols., 1720. 
Bungener, History of the Council of 

Trent, 

Bunsen, Chevalier, Signs of the 
Times. 

Burnet, Bishop, Exposition of the 
Thirty-nine Articles. 

Burnet, Bishop, History of the En- 
glish Reformation, 6 vols. 



Clarendon, Lord, Diary and Corre- 
spondence of, 2 vols. 
Clarendon, Lord, History of the Great 

Rebellion, vols. 
Clarendon, Lord, Life of, 2 vols, 
j Clarke, Dr. Adam, Commentary, 4 
I vols. 

j Clarke, Dr. Samuel, Paraphrase of 

the Gospels, 2 vols, 
! Clarke, J. Freeman, Events and 
| Epochs of Religious History, 
' Clarkson, David, Diocesan Episco- 
pacy. 

Clemens Alexamlrinus, 2 vols., J. P. 
Migne. 

Cloud of Witnesses, Martyrs of the 
Covenant, 1680-88. 

Coke, Dr. Thomas, Journals of. 
j Coke, Dr. Thomas, Letters in Reply 
I to Home, 



Burnet, Bishop, History of His Own j Coke and Moore, Life of John Wes- 



Time, 4 vols. 
Brewster, Secular Essay, 1800. 
Brodie, History of Great Britain, 4 

vols- 
Brown, Dr. J., Puseyite Episcopacy. 
Browne, W. IL, History of a Palati- 
nate, Maryland. 
Budd, Infant Baptism the Means of 
National Reformation, 

Calvin, John, Institutes, 2 vols. 

Campbell, Dr. G., Preliminary Dis- 
sertation. 

Canons of the Church of England. 

Canons of the Council of Trent, 2d 
cel., 1565. 

Carroll, B. R., Historical Collections 

of South Carolina, 2 vols. 
Cams, Life of Simeon. 
Catalogue of English Writers on the 

Scriptures, 1665. 
Catechism of the Council of Trent. 
Cave, Lives of the Fathers, 3 vols. 
Centuriators of Magdeburg, vols. 

1559-73. 

Chapin, The Primitive Church. 
Chillingworth, Life of, 1776. 
Chrysostom, Works of, 13 vols., Ben 
edictine ed.: Paris, 1718-33. 



ley, 

Coleman, Primitive Church. 
Collier, Ecclesiastical History of 

Great Britain, 9 vols. 
Colton, Genius of the Episcopal 
Church. 

Cook, History of the Church of Scot- 
land, 3 vols. 
Cooke, John Esten. History of the 

People of Virginia. 
Cooper, Ezekiel, Discourse on the 

Death of Asbury. 
Croly, Rev. Geo., Historical Sketches. 
Cureton, Corpus Ignatianum. 

D'Aubign£, Theodore Agrippa, Life 
of. 

Dimoek, Thirty-nine Articles, 2 vols. 
Discipline of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, 
j Dixon, Dr. J., Tour in America. 
! D'Oyley, Life of Archbishop Sancroft, 
j 2 vols. 

j Drew, Samuel, Life of Dr. Coke, 
j Drew, Samuel, Life of. 
Drury, A. W., Life of Bishop Otter- 
I bein. 

Dupin, Histoire Eeclesiastique du 
' Dix Septieme Sieclc, 4 vols. 



List of Authorities. 



507 



Elliott, Dr. C, Essay on Ordination 
in Meth. Magazine, 1S39. 

Emory, Dr. R., History of the Dis- 
cipline. 

Emory, Bishop, Defense of our Fath- 
ers. 

Emory, Bishop, Episcopal Contro- 
versy Be vie wed. 

Epiphanius, Works of, 2 vols: Peta- 
vius, Paris, 1622. 

Episcopius, Life of. 

Ethel word's Chronicle: Bohn. 

Etheridge, J. W., Life of Dr. Thomas 
Coke. 

Eusehius of Cesarea, Theophania. 
Eusehius, Ecclesiastical History. 
Evagrius, Church History. 
Evan, History of the Prayer-hook. 
Evelyn, John, Diary of. 

Fac-similes of Church Documents. 
Farewell Sermons of Non- conformist 

Ministers in 1G62. 
Fletcher, John. "Works of, 9 vols.: 

London. 

Fleury, Ecclesiastical History, 3 vols. 
Forbes, John, Records of the Kirk of 
Scotland. 

Fulke, William, Defense of English 
Translations. 

Fuller, Church History, 3 vols. 

Geoffrey of Monmouth, British His- 
tory of: Bohn. 

Gihson, Year of Grace in Ireland, 1859. 

Gieseler, Church History, 3 vols. 

Gildas, the Works of: Bohn. 

Gillies, Life of George Whitefield. 

Gilpin, William, Life of Cranmer. 

Goode, Wm., Rule of Faith and Prac- 
tice, 2 vols. 

Goodwin, John, Redemption Re- 
deemed. 

Gorrie, History of the M. E. Church. 

Gorrie, Lives of Eminent Methodist 
Ministers. 

Granger, Biographical History of En- 
gland, 4 vols. 

Grotins, Notes on the Old and New 
Testaments, 2 vols., 1727. 

Guizot, History of Civilization, 2 vols. 



Hagenbach, History of the Church, 

2 vols. 

Hale, Sir Matthew, Works of, 2 vols. 
Hales, John, the Ever Memorable, 

Tract on Schism. 
Hall, Puritans and their Principles. 
Hallam, Constitutional History of 

England, 3 vols. 
Hallam, The Middle Ages, 2 vols. 
Hardwick, History of the Thirty -nine 

Articles. 

Harington, Sir John, Nuga3 Anthpia?, 

3 vols. 

Harrison, Dr. J., Dr. Pnsey's Chal- 
lenge Answered, 2 vols. 

Harrison, Dr. J., The Fathers vs. Dr. 
Pnsey. 

Hase, History of the ChristianChnrch . 

Haslam, From Death into Life. 

Haslam, More Years of my Ministry. 

Haweis, Dr. T., History of the 
Church, 3 vols., 1S02. 

Hawks, History of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in Virginia. 

Hawks, Journals of the General Con- 
ventions of Virginia. 

Henkle, M.M., Primitive Episcopacy. 

Henry of Huntingdon, Ecclesiastical 
History: Bohn. 

Hetherington, History of the Church 
j of Scotland. 

| Hoadley, Bishop, on The Kingdom of 
| Christ. 

j Hoadley, Bishop, Reply to Represen- 
tations of his Critics, 1718. 
Hohart, Bishop, The Churchman 
Armed. 

Holinshead, Chronicles of Scotland. 
Hook, Early Years of Bishop Ho- 
hart. 

Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, 3 vols. 

Howe, Dr. John, Works of. 

Howell, Dr. R. B.C., Early Baptists 

of Virginia. 
Hungary, History of the Protestant 

Church of. 
Huntingdon, Life of the Conntess of, 

2 vols. 
Hufctou, James, Life of. 



508 



List of Authorities. 



Ignatius, Epistles of. 
Irenaeus, Works of, 2 vols. 
Isidore of Pelusium, Works of. 



London Encyclopedia, 45 vols., 1S29. 
Maeaulay, History of England, 4 vols. 
Mackenzie, Life of John Calvin. 



Ivens, Rev. C, History of the Book Mackintosh, J., History of Great Brit 



Notes on Virginia. 
, Correspondence of, 



of Common Prayer. 
Ives, Bishop, Trials of a Mind. 
Ivimey, Life of John Milton. 

Jackson, Thos., Life of John Good- 
win. 

Jackson, Thos., Life of Charles Wes- 
ley. 

Jefferson, Thos 
Jefferson, Thos 
4 vols. 

Jerome, Works of St., 9 vols., J, P. 
Migne. 

Jewel, Bishop, Apology for the 

Church of England. 
Jewel, Bishop, Defense of Apology. 
Jobson, T. J., America and American 

Methodism. 
Jones, History of the Waldenses. 
Journals of the General Conference, 

M. E. Church. 
Journal of Charles Wesley, 2 vols. 
Justin Martyr, Works of, 5 vols. 

Killen, The Ancient Church. 
King, Lord Peter, Primitive Church. 
King, Key. Jarrold, Lectures on the 

Church Universal. 
Knowles, J. D., Memoir of Roger 

Williams. 



Lactantius, Works of. 

Laud, Archbishop, Episcopacy and 

Ritual of the Church of England. 
Lawrence, History of the United 

Brethren in Christ. 
Le Bas, Life of Cranmer. 
Lee, L. M., Life and Times of Jesse 

Lee. 

LeXeve, Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicans?, 
Lightfoot, John, Works of, 13 vols. 
Limborch, Body of Divinity. 
Liturgy and Ritual of Queen Eliza- 
beth. 

Locke, John, Essay on Toleration. 
Locke, John, Exposition of St. Paul's 
Epistles. 



ain, 10 vols. 
Macknight, Epistles of the New Tes- 
j tament, 4 vols. 

Macpherson, History of Great Brit- 
ain, 2 vols. 
Matthew Paris, Chronicle of En- 
gland, 3 vols.: Bohn. 
Matthew of Westminster, Flowers of 

History, 2 vols. : Bohn. 
May, History of the Long Parlia- 
ment. 

j McCrie, Life of John Knox. 
I McCrie, Life of Henderson. 
Mcllvaine, Bishop, Oxford Divinity 

Compared. 
McTyeire, Bishop, History of Meth- 
odism. 

McVickar. Life of Bishop Hobart. 
Mendham, Life and Pontificate of 
Pius V. 

Miller, Lectures on The Christian 
Ministry. 

Milner, History of the Christian 

Church, 5 vols. 
Mischna, Com. Maimonides et Bar- 

tenora?, 6 vols.. 169S-1703. 
Mosheim, Church History. 
Motley, J. L., History of the United 

Netherlands, 4 vols. 
Motley, J. L., Rise of the Dutch Re- 
public, 3 vols, 
j Motley, J. L., Life and Death of John 
of Barneveld, 2 vols. 

j Neal, History of the Puritans, 2 
vols. 

I Xennius, History of the Britons: 
I Bohn. 

| Xicolini, History of the Jesuits, 
j Xoel, Baptist, Church and State. 

j Oldmixon, History of South Carolina, 
| Carr. Coll. 

I Opfcatus, Works of, J. P. Migne. 
j OrdericusVitalis, History of England 
and Xormandv. 4 vols,: Bohn. 



List of Authorities. 



609 



Ordinal of Edward VI. 

Orme, Life of John Owen. 

Origen, Works of, 9 vols., J. P. Migne. 

Paine, Bishop, Life of William Mc- 

Kenclree. 
Palmer, History of the Church. 
Papesse, Jeanne, Histoire de la, 2 

vols. 

Parliamentary History of England, 
24 vols. 

Pearson, Bishop, on the Creed. 
Pepys, Diary of, 4 vols. : Bohn. 
Phillips, Life of Cardinal Pole, 2 vols. 
Phillips, Strictures on his Life of 
Pole. 

Philostorgius, Church History : Bohn . 
Porter, History of Methodism. 
Porteus, Life of Bishop. 
Powell, Apostolical Succession. 
Prayer-hook of 1549. 
Prayer-book, History of. 
Presbyterian Clergymen Looking for 

the Church. 
Presbyterian Church, Records of the 

General Assembly of. 
Prideaux, Dr. Humphrey, Life of. 
Puller, Thomas, Moderation of the 

Church of England. 

Rabbi ben Tudela, Itinerary of, 2vols. 

Rapin, History of England, 3 vols. 

Reed and Matheson, Visit to Ameri- 
can Churches, 2 vols. 

Richard of Cirencester, Ancient State 
of Britain: Bohn. 

Ridley, Review of Phillips's Life of 
Cardinal Pole. 

Rigg, Dr. J. II., Churchmanship of 
John Wesley. 

Rigg, Dr. J. H.,The Living Wesley. 

Rigg, Dr. J. II., Modern Anglican 
Theology. 

Robertson, History of America. 

Roger de Hoveden, Annals of, 2 vols. : 
Bohn. 

Roger of Wendover, Flowers of His- 
tory, 2 vols.: Bohn. 

Roscoe, Memoirs of Scipio de Ricci, 
2 vols. 



Russell, Lord John, Life of Lord 
William Russell. 

1 Scott, William of Cupar, Apologetic 
j Narration of the Kirk of Scotland, 
j Scott, John, Life of Luther, 2 vols. 
' Scott, Sir Walter, History of Scot- 
land, 2 vols. 

Seeker, Archbishop, Works of, 3 vols. 

Servetus, Life of. 

Sidney, Life of Samuel Walker of 
Truro. 

Simpson, Plea for Religion. 

Smedley, History of the Reformed 
j Church of France, 3 vols. 
I Smith, George, History of Wesleyan 
i Methodism, 2 vols. 

Smith, John, History of Virginia, 2 
vols. 

Smyth, Apostolical Succession. 
Smyth, Presbytery and Prelacy. 
Smyth, Wm., Lectures on Modern 

History, 2 vols. 
Socrates, Ecclesiastical History: 
| Bohn. 

i Southey, Life of John Wesley, 2 vols, 
j Southgate, Visit to the Syrian 

Churches. 
Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History: 

Bohn. 

Sparks, Jared, Collection of Essays 
and Tracts in Theology, 6 vols. 

Speed, John, History of Great Brit- 
ain, 1627. 

Spooner, Methodism as it Was. 

State Tracts of the Reign of William 

| nr., 2 vols. 

j Steinmetz, History of the Jesuits, 2 
j vols. 

! Stevens, History of Methodism, 3 
j vols. 

j Stillingfleet, Bishop, The Irenicuiu. 
j Stone, Life of Bishop Griswold. 

Strype, Life of Archbishop Grindal. 

Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, 2 
vols. 

Strype, Life of Archbishop Parker. 
Strype, Annals of the Reformation, 
6 vols. 



510 



List of Authorities. 



Sweden as it Was in 1688, 
Syraonds, Life of John Milton. 

Taylor, Isaac, Wesley and Method- 
ism. 

Taylor, Jeremy, Works of, 5 vols. 
Tefft, Methodism Successful . 
Tertulliaii, Works of, 4 vols.: Regal - 

tins, Paris, 1634. 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Works of, 2 

vols. 

Theodoret, Church History : Bohn. 
Theophylact, Works of. 
The Church Review. 
Thuanns, Life of. 

Tillotson, Archbishop, Works of, 12 
vols. 

Todd, Life of John Milton. 
Trench, Realities of Irish Life. 
Trumbull, Time Blue Laws of Con- 
necticut. 

Turner, Sharon, Reign of Henry 
VIII., 2 vols. 

Tyerman, Life and Times of J. Wes- 
ley, 3 vols. 

Tyerman, Life and Times of Rev. 
Samuel Wesley, Rector of Epworth. 

Tyerman, Oxford Methodists. 

United Brethren, History of Missions 
of. 

United Brethren in Christ, Hand- 
book of, 



Wakefield, Gilbert, Memoirs of, 2 
vols. 

Wakeley, Lost Chapters of Method- 
ist History. 

Warburton, Divine Legation of Mo- 
ses, 4 vols. 

Ware, Rev. T., Memoirs of. 

Washington, Writings of, 12 vols. 

Watson, J. D., Methodist Errors. 

Watson, R., Life of John Wesley. 

Watson, R., Works of, 13 vols.: Lon- 
don. 

Watson, Bishop, Anecdotes of the 
Life of. 

Watts, Dr. Isaac, Works of, 3 vols. 
Wesley, John, Works of, 14 vols.: 
London. 

Westminster Assembly, History of. 

Wheatley on the Common Prayer. 

White, Bishop, Memoirs of the 
Church. 

Whitehead, Life of Wesley. 

Wilberforce, Bishop, Histoiy of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
United States. 

William III., Letters of, 2 vols. 

Wilson, Life of Bishop White. 

Winterbotham, History of the United 
States, 4 vols. 

Wirt, Life of Patrick Henry. 

Wordsworth, Ecclesiastical Biog- 
raphy, 4 vols. 



The End. 



H 132 82 




* * &** \: Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process, 

o * * * fc ' • Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

*i *cS?$$tW* C .* * yy^J* * Treatment Date: May 2006 

; PreservationTechnologies 

'* "» <C* • ^^Sj^^^ff c A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

~Y **^£^r^l* v» P *^*a£>5S* « * 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 

* • i ^ • a>* © ^c> * Cranberry Township, PA 16066 

1 •<> *\ - "2* " (724)779-2111 



